CONSUMER TESTING OF SCRAMBLED EGG—SOLIDS BY John William Inttle A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Poultry Science 1968 ABS TRACT CONSUMER TESTING OF SCRAMBLED EGG-SOLIDS by John William Tuttle There is a dearth of information on the use of egg solids at true individual consumer level. Egg solids are not being marketed in consumer packs. A quality egg solid, packed for consumer use, objec- tzrvely'advertised, and preceded by consumer education programs might be: the way to raise per capita egg consumption by putting a useful product into the hands of consumers. This research was designed to determine whether consumers could identify the difference between scrambled fresh eggs and scrambled egg solids, and then if differences were detectable, which was preferred. Commercially available egg solids were tested. Commercially axnailable products were used rather than a test tube or laboratory pro- dLuzt that might be months or years away from commercial production. A fcxrtified whole egg solid was the first product tested. This product ccnntained approximately 8 per cent corn syrup on a liquid basis before iJ:'was spray dried. A nonfortified whole egg solid of the highest (piality obtainable from commercial sources was specified for the second product tested. A patented egg product was the third product tested. This product was being recommended primarily for scrambling. John William Tuttle Four different groups were used for the taste panels. Panel A was composed of wives of Michigan State University campus based exten- sion specialists. These women met for an educational program on con- sumer preference testing and were used for trial 1. The Michigan State university - Wayne State University Consumer Panel, Panel B, was used for trials 2 and 10. This panel was designed to determine preferences of consumers with annual incomes ranging from under $2,000 to over $10,000, of ages 31 to over 54, and educational range from under 8 to over 14 years. The third group of panelists, Panel C, were members of a Michigan State University Food Science Class. This group was being trained in organoleptic food testing techniques. The fourth group of panel members, Panel D, were chosen from the Food Science, Dairy Science, Animal Husbandry, and Poultry Science Departments of Michigan State university. The fourth group of panel members were grouped as secre- taries (homemakers), students, and professional staff. A method of scrambling eggs, both from fresh eggs and from egg solids, that gave a true picture of their consistency, color, flavor, and palatability was developed. This method lent itself to the prepara— tion of scrambled eggs for large numbers of panel participants and was repeatable. The results from the 10 trials of this study indicate that: A. The fortified whole egg solids (containing 8 per cent corn syrup before drying) were too sweet to be readily acceptable by con- sumers for scrambling purposes when fresh eggs were available. B. Whole egg solids were preferred to fortified whole egg solids for scrambling purposes. John William Tuttle C. Scrambled fresh eggs were definitely preferred to scrambled whole egg solids. D. The patented egg product was preferred to fresh eggs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express sincere thanks and appreciation to Dr. J. H. Wblford, his major professor, for his help and guidance in this study. He also wishes to thank Dr. E. J. MbCarthy, Dr. H. E. Lerzelere, Dr. L. E. Dawson, Professor J. A. Davidson, and Dr. H. C. Zindel for the time and guidance each offered. The facilities, equipment, and supplies provided by the Poultry Science and Food Science Departments at Michigan State University were deeply appreciated. The Roberts Dairy Company kindly donated egg solids. The author also wishes to express appreciation to the University of Kentucky Extension Service for granting him a leave of absence and for providing a study grant. The author is especially indebted to those who stood by him and offered encouragement during his illness. Finally, the author wishes to thank his wife, Elois, for running the home during his absence and for her patience and encouragement during the course of the thesis preparation. ii I. II. III. IV. V. VII. VIII. IX. TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . History of the Egg Drying The Revival of Egg Drying CONTENTS Industry . . . . . . in the United States Expansion During World War II . . . . . . . . Product Acceptance During World War II . . . . Dried Eggs Officially Renamed Egg Solids . . . Production Problems . . . Procurement . . . . . Salmonella . . . . . . Ingredient Handling Consumer Usage . . . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . mm EDURE O O O O O O 0 O 0 Products to be Tested . . Panel Participants . . . Presentation of Samples . Statistical Procedure . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial \Io‘UIJ-‘wND-I O C O O O O O O O O O Page ii iii vii HHD—‘i—‘HH \OmU'IULDNOmN-L‘ 30 31 31 32 35 37 41 41 42 44 44 46 46 46 Page Trial 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Trial 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Trial 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 x. SWRY O O O D O O O O O O O 0 O o O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 57 XI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 XII. LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 XIII. APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 iv 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Whole egg solids: Annual production United States, 1940-44 s a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Percentage of manufacturers of miscellaneous food products that used egg products or egg substi- tutes in various forms, 1960 (Enochian and Saunders, 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of bakeries by type using eggs or egg sub- stitutes in various forms, 1960 (Enochian and saunders, 1965) O C O O O O O I I O O O l O O O O 0 Percentage of confectioners using egg albumen in various forms, or egg substitutes, 1960 (Enochian and Saunders, 1965) . . . . . . . . . Use of eggs and egg substitutes in various forms by food industries surveyed, United States, 1960 (Enochian and Saunders, 1965) . . . . Price comparison of frozen eggs and dried egg solids for the same product . . . . . . . . . . . Tabular presentation of the experimental design . . . . Acceptance of Product A, the fortified whole egg solid, by Panel A (Trial 1) . . . . . . . . . Acceptance of Product A, the fortified whole egg salid’ by Panel B (k :31 2) O O O O l O O O O O O 0 0 Acceptance of Product A, the fortified whole egg solid, vs. Product B, the whole egg solid, by Panel D (hial 4) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Acceptance of Product B, the whole egg solid, by Panel D (Rial 5) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Acceptance of Product B, the whole egg solid, by Panel D (hi-8'1 6) O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O Page 24 25 26 27 28 35 41 43 45 47 48 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. Page Acceptance of Product C, a patented egg product, by Panel D (Trial 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Effect of diluting Product C, a patented egg product, with fresh eggs and acceptance by Panel D (Rial 8) O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 51 Effect of the addition of sausage to Product C, a patented egg product, and acceptance by Panel D (Rial 9) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 52 Acceptance of Product C, a patented egg product, by Panel B (Trial 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Sample Triangle Test Record Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 B. Sample Hedonic Scale Record Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 C. Probability in Triangular Taste Tests . . . . . . . . . . . 66 D. Significance in Triangular Taste Tests (p 67 II p... \ 0‘ V E. Unsolicited Comments from Panel B (Trial 2) . . . . . . . . 68 F. unsolicited Comments from Panel B (Trial 2) . . . . . . . . 70 G. Unsolicited Comments from Panel B (Trial 10) . . . . . . . 72 H. Unsolicited Comments from Panel B (Trial 10) . . . . . . . 74 vii INTRODUCTION Through the years improvements in quality have been made on egg solids. This has been possible through the use of well researched techniques and/or procedures using spray dryers, controlled bacterial fermentation, pasteurization, automatic machine breaking, acidifying, multi-stage dryers, desugaring, cooling, gas packing, fortifying, and quality breaking stock. Commercial bakeries, candy makers, and other food manufacturing companies are using more and more egg solids. They are doing so because of the ingredients, economy of the dried products, standardization of the product, lower labor and storage costs, and because of satisfactory action of this form of the egg in the final product. There is a dearth of information on the use of egg solids at the individual consumer level. Apparently egg solids are available that could be used for home baking, home candy making, and other home cooking uses because of the acceptance of products that have been made using egg solids. Egg solids are not being marketed in consumer packs. A quality egg solid product, packed for consumer use, objectively adver- tised, and preceded by consumer education programs might be one way to increase per capita egg consumption in the United States by putting a useful product into the hands of consumers. Peak egg consumption in the United States occurred in 1945 when 403 eggs per capita were consumed. Egg consumption has declined since 2 that time and was estimated at 307 eggs per capita in 1965. This de- cline of 23 percent in 20 years resulted despite an expanding egg in- dustry. However, consumption in pounds of eggs (1947 - 42 pounds 12 ounces vs 1965 - 38 pounds and 6 ounces) has declined only 11 percent, 4 pounds, 6 ounces. Wilhelm (1966) stated ”Egg consumption has declined since 1945 even though price per dozen has also declined, 37.7¢ per dozen in 1945 to 32.4c per dozen in 1964. But production has not declined! Produc- tion was 56.2 billion eggs in 1945 and 64.5 billion in 1964." The decline in per capita consumption since the high of 1945 has been due to (l) a change to a more normal pre-war situation as other protein foods became readily and economically available; (2) a change in American dietary habits with less emphasis on breakfast; and (3) fewer eggs consumed on farms since fewer farmers are keeping layers and since the total farm population is decreasing. The apparent per capita consumption of eggs in the United States represents estimates of the commercial and hatching eggs used, plus eggs used by military, plus imports, minus exports, divided by the estimate of population. Wilhelm (1966) estimated the 1965 domestic disappearance of United States eggs as follows: Used for egg products 307 shell eggs available 34 (11%) dried, frozen, etc. 273 Used by restaurants 37 (12%) Available as shell eggs 236 average of 4.5 eggs per week Used at breakfast 177 (75%) Used in cooking 52 baking, dressings, etc. Used at other meals 7 3 In this paper, it is the 11 percent of available eggs that go into egg products that is of interest. This 11 percent, or 1 out of every 9 eggs laid and marketed in the U.S., is a significant segment of the egg business. As integrated production has increased, interest has been shown in the possibility of adding egg-breaking and/or egg-drying facilities to the business. Production from such facilities must be marketed. This research was designed to determine whether consumers could tell the difference between scrambled fresh eggs and scrambled egg solids and then if differences were detectable, which they preferred. If egg solids are comparable to fresh eggs for scrambling purposes, marketing programs aimed at the consumer could be implemented. REVIEW OF LITERATURE History of the Egg Drying Industry Records of Kbudele and Heinsohn (1960) indicate that in 1878, a St. Louis, Missouri firm was transferring egg yolks and albumen, by a drying process, into a light brown, meal-like substance. From 1895 to 1905 a number of plants began operation and dried eggs were shipped to Alaska and even China to be used by the united States Army stationed there. Down through the years several types of dryers have been used. The earliest dryers were the rotary-drum type. In 1907, the belt-type dryer was invented and with this invention, flake—dried whole eggs and yolk were produced. Belt drying methods were employed in China for this kind of production. The liquid was spread in thin films on continuous aluminum.belts moving through a hot air stream (Miller, 1945). Attempts to dry egg white by this system were apparently unsuccessful due to the difficulty of spreading the liquid and removing the dried products. The first spray dryer was invented in 1901. During the mid-1930's the Spray dryer, which had been used for drying milk, was adapted to dry ‘Whole eggs and yolks (Kbudele and Heinsohn, 1960). In this dryer, liquid egg was forced under pressure of approximately 3,500 pounds per Square inch through fine nozzles into the drying chamber. Heated filtered air forced through the chamber by a powerful blower, came in contact with the fine spray of liquid egg causing it to dry instantly 4 5 and fall as a fine golden powder. Around 1939, it was adapted to dry whites as well as whole eggs and yolks. Widespread use of this rela— tively efficient dryer was a significant technological factor in the rapid expansion of dried egg production during WOrld War II. Spray drying was the most common method for the production of egg solids in 1964 (Bergquist, 1964). In drying by the tray method, liquid egg was run onto metal trays, usually aluminum, of any convenient size or shape. The liquid egg, usually the liquified white, was poured directly onto the trays or pumped to them through flexible tubing fitted with hand-controlled nozzles which run from the tanks of liquid egg to the drying room. The trays were placed on shelves in specially constructed cabinets. Hot air was forced through the cabinet, entering on one side and escaping through appropriate ducts on the other side. From 6 to 12 hours was required to dry one batch at a temperature of 110° to 120° F. The dry material was removed from the pans, collected in convenient bins, and graded for market. Egg white was the principal product dried by this method, although egg yolk was sometimes dried in the same way (U.S.D.A., 1941). The Food Research Laboratory, Bureau of Chemistry was created in 1907 by the Department of Agriculture to conduct technological studies primarily in egg and poultry processing (Koudele and Heinsohn, 1960). Initially most of the activities centered on poultry meat and shell eggs. But a legal case (Keith, 1914) over frozen eggs clearly indicated how little was known about the sanitary and refrigeration requirements for egg products. A group of scientists under the direction of 6 Dr. Mary E. Pennington began conducting basic research regarding the preservation of egg products. As information became available, Dr. Pennington, in line with her laboratory's motto of "Clean, Cool, Cooperate," helped the industry improve its physical facilities and technology. Sparkling-white egg breaking rooms, models of sanitation, began to appear. Improved techniques in breaking eggs and handling sliquid eggs were adopted to minimize bacterial counts. According to Dr. Pennington (1916): The laboratory findings practically revolutionized the apparatus used and the routine followed in the breaking room. Instead of the hap- hazard collection of odd pieces of china, glass and tin, there were evolved machines accurately adapted to the work to be done; and the care- less, inconsequent methods of cracking and emptying the shells were replaced by a standardized, definite routine, making for both quality and efficiency. Separating the white from the yolks was a very time consuming process when girls flipped the yolk back and forth from first one half of the shell to the other. In 1912, the hand separator was invented by Harry A. Perry. Its use greatly improved the efficiency and speed of breaking and contributed to the development of large-scale operations (Kbudele and Heinsohn, 1960). Scrambled eggs made from flake-dried eggs were served at a White House breakfast during world war I (Koudele and Heinsohn, 1960). This event paved the way for limited use of sample packages of dried eggs in a few army camps. While the U. 3. Army was not prepared to use dried eggs during world war I, the soundness of the idea was later confirmed by developments during world War II, 1941-45, when military purchases 7 were equivalent to about 57 million cases, or 8 percent of total farm egg output (U.S.D.A., 1946). The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 made possible direct shipments of egg solids from China to New York City at relatively low rates. Imports were heavy from firms in China owned or supervised by British or American businessmen (Knudele and Heinsohn, 1960). Actually, the Chinese dried albumen was superior to the American product in shelf-life and whipping qualities because of one important step.in processing (Brooks and Taylor, 1955). Liquid white was allowed to ferment spontaneously before drying with the effective agents being primarily bacteria, derived fortuitously from shells during egg breaking. At the time it was unknown why the Chinese were able to produce a better product than the Americans could. But years later, American scientists discovered the important role played by bacterial fermenta- tion (Koudele and Heinsohn, 1960). The process improved she1f~life by removing the glucose naturally present in egg whites and, in addi- tion, improved the product's whipping qualities by removing yolk con~ tamination and the protein mucin. The Chinese were aware of the supe- rior performance of their albumen product and tried to keep the methods secret. The Revival of Egg Drying in the United States Several factors were responsible for stimulating the resumption of egg drying on a commercial scale in the united States. The Chinese Civil war outbreak in 1927 tended to curtail Chinese dried egg exports while low egg prices in the United States during the early 1930's 8 resulted in a more favorable competitive relationship. Higher import duties were also established in 1930 on dried eggs. The spray dryer, which had been used for drying milk, was adapted to dry whole eggs and yolks. Product quality was enhanced during the late 1930's by the development of equipment that would remove all pieces of egg shell and chalazae from liquid egg. Quality control laboratories also came into use (Koudele and Heinsohn, 1960). By 1938, pasteurization of liquid whole egg was practiced on a commercial basis for the purpose of improving the keeping quality of egg products (Goresline, 1954). Another major contribution was the dis- covery in 1941 that removal, by the bacterial fermentation technique, of glucose from liquid albumen before drying resulted in albumen solids with remarkable stability (Brooks and Taylor, 1955). Expansion During WOrld War II In early 1941, there were 15 drying plants producing dried eggs in the United States. On the basis of a 20-22 hour day and 300 days of operation, these plants could have possibly produced 50 million pounds of dried whole egg product (U.S.D.A., 1941). In September, 1943, domes- tic egg-drying capacity was estimated at 420 million pounds annually (U.S.D.A., 1943). Production of whole egg solids expanded almost a thousand-fold from-1940 to 1944 (Table 1; U.S.D.A., 1953). This expan— sion, according to Kbudele and Heinsohn (1960), occurred despite a war- time shortage of strategic metals to manufacture new drying equipment and the lack of trained personnel for industry and the government for its inspection program. 9 Table l-—Whole egg solids: annual production United States, 1940-44 (U.S.D.A., 1953) Year Production (1,000 pounds) 1940 392 1941 31,241 1942 226,127 1943 252,903 1944 311,369 Product Acceptance During World War II Before the government would accept dried eggs for shipment, the powder had to pass rigid inspection tests for palatability and other quality criteria. The Federal Food and Drug Administration had estab- lished standards of identity for egg products in 1939. The U. S. Department of Agriculture purchased considerable quantities of dried eggs on the basis of percent solids, percent fat, solubility and palata- bility (U.S.D.A., 1964). It was impossible to store the product under continuous refrigera- tion until it was consumed and objectional off-flavors developed which seriously affected its usefulness. An objective appraisal of the qual- ity and shelf-life of most of the dried whole eggs produced during WOrld war II follows: (1) The initial quality ... ........ ....was good (Lineweaver and Feeney, 1950). The bad reputation given to dried eggs during the war was justified because the product deteriorated seriously between the time it was prepared and the time it was offered for consumption. (2) During World War II, a good quality dehydrated egg with a high palatability score was prepared, but it became unstable during storage and under the transportation conditions which were necessary 10 during war times, so that a certain stigma became attached to the term ”dried eggs". In the Armed Forces some of this stigma was attributable to the poor methods of preparation in the Army mess (Kahlenberg, 1963)° (3) According to Brooks and Taylor (1955), the dried whole egg manufactured before 1939 was not intended to be eaten as a scrambled egg or omelette,and for such a purpose it was often an article of inn different quality. The dried egg manufactured during the war was not entirely successful, although the quality was greatly improved. When freshly prepared under proper conditions, the product was largely defi- cient only in aerating power, but transport delays often prolonged the interval between manufacture and consumption to such an extent that the flavor was impaired and the aerating power was diminished still further. (4) During World War II, tremendous quantities of dried eggs, primarily dried whole eggs, were produced for the Armed Forces and the lend-lease program. The impetus of this large scale production brought on extensive research efforts, the results of which, unfortunately, were not generally available and put into practice until late in the war. As a result some quantities of poor quality dried eggs reached servicemen and a certain stigma became attached to their use (Forsythe and Rfiyahara,.l959). (5) The Author of this thesis spent four years in uniform during World war II, two of them in the South Pacific Theater, and can say from personal experience that deteriorated whole-egg powder was the source of many complaints. (6) Bigelow (1959) tells of an incident related by an Army officer indicating the ingenuity of one mess sergeant: 11 "One of my duties as battalion mess officer in Germany was to check the daily menu against the cook's work sheet. One day when scrambled eggs were on the breakfast menu, the cook's work sheet listed powdered eggs, followed by the note, 'Add one broken egg shell'. Perplexed, I asked the mess sergeant why he was feeding the troops egg shells with their scrambled eggs. 'Just using a little psychology, Sir,‘ he replied. 'The boys don't go for these powdered eggs at all, and when they bite into a piece of egg shell they think ther're eating the real 'McCoy'. There's hardly any waste nowadays.'" This quality deterioration did not go unnoticed; federal, state and industry scientists started a program that became known as the Co- ordinated Dried Egg Research Program. Some of the recommendations in- cluded: more sanitary handling of liquid melange; preheating or pas— teurization before drying; rapid cooling of the product after drying; production of low moisture (2%) powders; and packaging the powder under inert gasses in hermetically—sealed containers (U.S.D.A., 1950). After the use of recommended procedures had begun, the improve- ment in initial quality and in the shelf-life of commercially dried whole egg was very marked. Stewart (1944), the coordinator of the Coordinated Dried Egg Research Program, stated: "Whereas the product of a year ago was, in numerous cases, poor in sanitary quality and initial palatability, with a shelf-life of only a very few weeks at 100° F., and a few months at 70° F., it can now be prepared with low bacteria count, excellent flavor, and with a shelf- 1ife of several months at 1000 F. and about a year at 70° F." 12 In spite of all the difficulties with deterioration of dried eggs.during world war II, their use in a special diet resulted in almost .mdraculous.speedups in recovery of many war-wounded and starving victims of concentration camps. The diet consisted of water, plus a mixture of powdered egg and powdered milk which tasted like egg nog or ice cream. Pollock (1946) reported that of 92,000 soldiers liberated from German prison camps and treated with this bland diet, only eight died, although 40 percent of them suffered from severe malnutrition and at least 80 .percent were undernourished. At Recovered Allied Military Prisoners' Camps, daily sick call rate averaged more than 20 percent when the men were fed an ordinary army ration. About four-fifths of the complaints were due to stomach and intestinal disturbances. One week after the bland diet, consisting of a mixture of powdered eggs and powdered milk in water, was introduced, the sick call rate dropped to 4 percent. There were no cases of nausea and vomiting, and only 15 percent of the complaints were due to intes- tinal disturbance (Pollock, 1946). The egg and milk mixture sped Army wounded and post-operative patients in EurOpe back to duty in about one-third the average time. The high_protein content of the mixture, together with its high caloric value from the fat and carbohydrate, and its lack of irritation to the stomach and intestines constitute its advantages. Prolonged convales- cence could be a rarity if this war lesson were applied. Dried Eggs Officially Renamed Egg Solids Unfortunately, reasons for the off-flavors of dried whole eggs were not discovered until near the end of WOrld war II. During the war 13 a certain stigma became attached to the term "dried eggs" by the nation's Armed Forces. This was a challenging problem that the industry knew must be overcome if dried eggs were to be acceptable to the general public. In 1952, domestic dryers organized the Egg Solids Council to improve and promote the use of egg solids. In recognition of technical achievements resulting in control of off-flavors and greatly improved product stability, it was decided to drop the term "dried eggs" and to adopt the term "egg solids" (Koudele and Heinsohn, 1960). Production Problems Procurement.--According to Forsythe and Miyahara (1959), one of the more important changes that had taken place to improve the quality of egg solids was the change in the production and procurement of the eggs for breaking. No longer were the breaking-stock eggs looked down on by the rest of the egg industry as the surplus~~the eggs no one else would buy. Egg breakers had imposed such rigid standards on shell eggs that in some areas it had been necessary to start large egg production units where thousands of cases of eggs could be produced under the most carefully controlled conditions at costs low enough to warrant sub- stantial savings to the consumer. The improvements in quality of such eggs, over those previously produced on random farms scattered all over the Middle West, with little or no quality control, had resulted in raw materials for the egg solids manufacturer with more desirable color, greater solids and fat content in the yolk, and with whites that had superior functional and foaming properties. It was now possible to buy current production fresh dried egg solids every month in the year. This 14 procurement method avoided the storing of eggs and tying up large quantities of capital in inventories. Producing shell eggs for breaking has not been generally prac~ tical as the cost of these eggs has been too high. However, production cost on commercially-produced eggs has been going down, and it will probably continue to decline. This, together with the disappearance of the farm flock and stricter quality requirements for breaking stock, is expected to eventually make the costs of commercially produced shell eggs competitive for breaking (Newell,.l966). The necessity for locating more adequate sources was heightened by the growing emphasis on processed egg products by institutional users and intensified competition among breakers for available supplies (Anonymous, 1966). As farm flocks and layer population in the midwest shrank in the last decade, all midwestern breakers' procurement problems .intensified. In recent years, procurement has involved more than just a matter of obtaining "eggs." For example, there is the matter of liquid yield. Some strains of hens lay eggs with a higher liquid yield than other strains (Vbss, 1961). Also, yolk color, now that few chickens are perm mitted to roam outdoors, calls attention to layer diet (Koudele and Heinsohn, 1964). Price per dozen may not be the only consideration, as a consequence. Where once breakers could acquire a year's supply in the flush egg production months of February through June--sometimes at distress market prices--a leveling out in egg production month to month has presented new problems both with respect to price and supply. 15 Salmonella.-~The salmonella contamination threat is well docu- mented. Tugwell and Mundt (1957) inoculated S. C. White Leghorn females with salmonella previously isolated from egg products. Egg meats from intravenously inoculated hens yielded negative results when cultured. Egg meats from orally inoculated hens also gave negative results. A similar cultural examination was made of the egg shells. Nine percent of the shells examined were found to be contaminated. These data sup- port the probability_that improper handling of eggs, either by the pro- ducer or later by the processor, provides the necessary environment for the organisms to gain entrance to the egg contents. Mundt and TUgwell (1958) infected Single Comb White Leghorns with 6 species of salmonella in 4 trials, 2 by oral introduction and 2 by intravenous injection. No organisms were recovered from the egg meats cultured. Organisms were recovered from the shells 24 days after in- fection and from fecal material 35 days after infection. They concluded that infection of egg meats with the organisms used in their work by the infected hen was improbable; and that egg shells were contaminated with Salmonella spp. in the cloaca only after they had been produced and released from the uterus or immediately thereafter when eggs came in contact with contaminated surface. Faddoul (1963) reported an alarming increase in the number of salmonella.isolations from human sources being recorded in several states. It was evident that adequate prevention methods for human salmonella infections had not been affected. The presence of these pathogens in avian food products was a matter of great concern to all segments of the poultry industry. l6 Turnbull (1964) reported on the National Conference on Salmonel- losis, Atlanta, Georgia, March 11-13, 1964. Those in attendance at this conference recognized the fact that the poultry industry does have a genuine problem with respect to salmonella infections. Further pro- cessing of foods greatly increased the incidence of infection. Sal- monella organisms had been found in far too high incidence in cake mixes. The baking of the cake destroyed the organism but children picked up the infection prior to the baking process when they "licked the spoon" from the mixing bowl. Many problems such as this will have been eliminated when all egg processors resort to pasteurization. Galton (1964) reported that raw or inadequately cooked eggs were used in many types of foods such as custards, cream pies, eclairs, eggnog and milk shakes. These foods often represented a major part of the diet of young, aged, or debilitated individuals who were susceptible to salmonella infection. The salmonella organisms may have entered the egg by ovarian infection, or the shell may have become contaminated from fecal material. Up to 100 percent of some lots of frozen and dried eggs were found to contain salmonella. As a result, reports implicating processed egg products as the source of salmonellosis in man have appeared frequently. The urgency for production of liquid, frozen, or dried—egg products free from contamination with salmonellae was obvious. Because it was economically impractical to produce products from only naturally clean eggs and because of the inherent difficulties in producing all eggs free of salmonella contamination, a method to elimiu nate salmonella during processing was necessary. Pasteurization of liquid whole egg and egg yolk had been available for more than a decade 17 although it had been adopted by only a few processors and was usually used at the request of the buyer. Until recently adequate pasteuriza~ tion of liquid egg white had not been possible because of serious damage to the egg white proteins. The Western Regional Research Labe oratory, U. S. Department of Agriculture, recently developed a method to stabilize the egg white so that it is heat stable (U.S.D.A., 1965). This stabilized egg white can be effectively pasteurized without damage by the procedure now used in the United States for whole eggs, i.e., heating to 140-1430 F. for 3~l/2 to 4 minutes. Many countries (Canada, United Kingdom, Denmark, German , Italy) and at least one state have passed regulations requiring that only salmonella-free products as determined by bacteriological examination be sold. As the industry became aware of its salmonella contamination threat, and in particular when the Poultry Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S.D.A., put into effect its requirement that all egg products emanating from a U.S. inspected plant had to be pasteurized, egg breakers have been doing a great amount of soulwsearching regarding Aegg sources (Anonymous, 1966). This regulation (U.S.D.A., 1967) states that all egg products prior to being released into consumptive channels shall be pasteurized at not less than 1400 F. and held at this temperature for not less than 3-1/2 minutes except that where heat treating of dried whites is re~ quired, products shall be heated throughout for such times and at such temperatures as will result in a salmonella negative product. Egg ,products, liquid or dried, shall be sampled and tested for the presence 18 of salmonellae. Any product found to be salmonella positive shall be reprocessed. Kraft gt 31, (1967) reported on a study that was conducted during 2 consecutive years to determine sources and levels of bacterial con- tamination in commercial liquid egg from 2 federally inspected plants, and to relate sanitation practices to bacterial counts and salmonella in the liquid product. This study revealed that the bacterial contamina- tion depended on differences in plant sanitation and bacteriological condition of the shell eggs used for breaking. In one plant where sanitation practices were exacting, no salmonella were isolated. Ingredient handling,--As the trend toward automation progressed, ingredient handling costs became very important (Kahlenberg, 1963). The lack of flowability of whole egg and yolk solids slowed their adoption on commercial continuous operations. Due to the high fat con- tent of whole egg and yolk solids, flowing properties were very poor and the product could not be conveyed and measured automatically. This problem was especially accentuated when whole egg or yolk solids were packed into drums at temperatures above the melting points of the egg fats (85-900 F.) and when later refrigeration allows the fat to solidify. As a result the product had to be literally dug out of the package and manually or mechanically forced through the handling equipment. It was found that an anti-caking agent, sodiumrsilico~aluminate, added at levels of 1.5 to 2.0% would make whole egg and yolk solids free flowing without affecting performance (Kahlenberg, 1963). 19 Consumer Usage According to Ballas (1965), the infinite variety of ways in which table eggs are served fails to cover the full scope of ways that eggs fit into the diet of the world's best-fed nation. By no means is our egg consumption limited to the eggs we eat as just eggs. Over 701,320,000 pounds (roughly 584,433,333 dozen) of eggs are broken out in the united States annually and are a major factor in the quality production of noodles, macaroni, cakes and bakery goods, candies,and mayonnaise. An egg contains approximately 74 percent water. During the drying process almost 99 percent of the water is removed, and the egg is re- duced to about one-fourth of its original weight. Use of egg solids therefore greatly reduces the need for storage space and saves trans- portation costs. Other reasons for the ready acceptance and increasing usage of egg products by food industries and institutions according to Roudele and Heinsohn (1964) are: (l) convenience and ease of handling, (2) economy of purchasing separated products--yolks and egg whites which have specific functional properties, (3) availability of various types and forms of egg products in quantity for large-scale utilization by food manufacturers (4) improvement in shelf-life, (5) freedom from microorganisms, (6) standardized egg solids in terms of quality and performance, and (7) the development of egg solids with flavor and per- formance comparable to those of fresh shell eggs. According to recognized baking technologists there are at least six functions performed by eggs in cakes and similar products. Cicciu, (1965), lists the following functions: 20 (1) Binding Action (2) Leavening Action (3) Emulsifying Action (4) Flavor (5) Color (6) Nutritive value While the basic functions of egg solids are identical to those of frozen eggs, in many cases egg solids have special "built-in" prop- erties and the maximum value of these products cannot be obtained with- out minor changes in formulation and mixing techniques. Most egg solid manufacturers can supply technical service personnel to assist in for- mula readjustments (Forsythe and Miyahara, 1959). A wide variety of egg solid products have been developed and are commercially available for specialized application in the baking field. In the development of these products, primary attention has been to the functional and organoleptic roles demanded in the different products. Some of the products are standard whole egg solids, stabilized whole egg solids, whole egg solids-special blends, standard egg yolk solids, stabilized egg yolk solids, and egg white solids. According to Cicciu (1965) the product analyses are: (1) Standard whole egg solids Moisture 4.0 + or - 0.5% Fat 40.0 + or - 2.5% Protein 46.0% Minimum Glucose 1.5% Maximum Other 4.8% This type product is used in items where the primary functional property is not foaming, such as in cookies and fat-bearing cakes. 21 (2) Standard yolk solids Moisture .4.0 + or - 0.5% Fat 57.0% Minimum Protein 32.0 + or - 1.0% Glucose 0.4% Maximum Other 2.5% This type product is used in various prepared mixes and fat-bearing cake, but not where the primary functional property is foaming. (3) Standard egg white solids Moisture 7.5 + or - 0.5% .Fat 0.25% Protein 80.0% Minimal Glucose 0. 1% Maxim Other 5.0% + or - 0.5% This type product is used most generally in Angel Food cakes and meringues. Cicciu (1965) also states that stabilized eggs are available. This type product has been stabilized through the removal of glucose by the enzyme or controlled fermentation process. The stabilization re- sults in additional shelf-life for the egg product as well as for mixes ,prepared from the egg product. Because of greater aerating properties and improved solubility and dispersement properties many companies now use corn syrup solids in the production of dried egg products. Ballas Fortex #500 Egg Solids is a mixture of egg yolks, special syrup and salt blended in liquid eggs before being spray dried. The analysis is: Moisture 3% Maximum Fat 47.0% Minimum Protein 26. 0% Minimum Granulation 100% through USBS #.16 screen This product was specially prepared to replace liquid whole egg, sugared 22 yolks, or blends in sweet doughs and doughnuts. It is recommended for replacing sugared yolks in sweet dough and ice cream (Ballas, 1966). The united States Department of Agriculture has completed a study on the "Present and Potential Use of Egg Products in the Food Manufacturing Industry" (Enochian and Saunders, 1963). Firms selected for study included bakeries, confectioners, premix manufacturers, and other miscellaneous food manufacturers. Of 333 completed interviews, 210 were with bakeries, 34 with confectioners, 28 with premix manufac- turers, and 61 with other food manufacturers. This study indicated that food manufacturers were generally satisfied with the services being offered to them by their egg suppliers. Most firms were of the opinion that suppliers were doing a good job in furnishing them with commodity and price information and price-supply protection. They also rated egg suppliers favorably on delivery performance and on handling complaints. Food manufacturers were of the opinion that, in general, egg suppliers were not performing as well as other ingredient suppliers in the areas of special product service, research and development activities, and institutional advertising. It was frequently pointed out, however, that some large egg suppliers provided excellent services along these lines. Based on the findings of Enochian and Saunders (1963), the use of dried egg products and premixes containing eggs can be expected to in— crease substantially in the future. Increases in the use of dried eggs will be largely at the expense of liquid and frozen eggs because the convenience aspect of dried eggs and premixes appeal strongly to food manufacturers. 23 Feeney (1965) reported there was extensive interest and develop- ment in the use of egg solids by the pre-mix or ready-mix industry. Magazines published for the American housewife feature advertising spreads for such mixes. This advertising provoked a response that was both of a positive and negative nature. However, high-quality egg solids were being produced and the trend was for their inclusion by most preemix manufacturers. Drews (1966) reported that most of the major egg solids processors have had a long background of 25 to 40 years in technical egg processing. The leaders have not wasted their time, and much progress has been made in special techniques, in special mixes, in effective service to the commercial users, and in operational efficiencies. Egg nutrients are not low in cost compared with other nutrient sources available. In the face of the trends toward convenience foods, expanding manufacturing of pre-mix and pre-cooked baked goods is in the hands of people competent to develop and utilize extenders to replace forms of egg products. It is apparent that egg solids have established themselves in the food manufacturing industry, Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Enochian and Saunders, 1965). As labor becomes more of a problem in the food manu- facturing industry, greater usage will be made of egg solids as a means of lowering costs. Cicciu (1965) made comparisons between dried egg solids and frozen eggs in April 1965, from an economic viewpoint, Table 6. Obviously, from the data presented in this table dried egg solids have an economic advantage over frozen eggs except in the case of sugared 24 .mafimmonm vogue ca mafiaoxo«£u you moo: coumum muumoZm ooH o o oo o oo . . . . . . . . . . . . nonuo ooH m mm me o «A . . moHuHmHoon mooocmaaoomwz ooh ooh o o o o . . . . . . . . . . mwcaaommmm OCH OCH o o o o . . . . . . . . . . . muoocwm oofi o on on o o . . . .mwcwomoun mom mwawmwouw cod 0 oofi o o o . . . . . . . . . . . ooow mom OOH mm #N mm C O . . . . . . . . . . . munmmmwm ooH on o o c on . mooow mom was swam oomwoooum cod mm 0 mm Hg no . . huuadom mom umoa oommoooum ooH mom a me o q . . omamccomma .wcwmmouo oonm OCH 0 MH .VN 0 MH . . . . . . . o . o . ..HflOHNUQz OOH 0 0H mo m NH . . . . . . . . . . . mouoooz OOH OO 0 ON O OH . . o o o . . . . o . . mflaom cod o om cm 0 o . . . . . . . . . . mooom anon ucoouom monouwumASm mwwo ammo wwwo ammo Hmong mwm omega ammoum ease“; HHocm nonvoua ecu “mead .muoocosm was asanoocmv coma .mauom moofluo> ca mousufiuwnom wwo no ouoovoua wwo mom: umzu muoovoum voow osooamaaoumwa mo muoHSuomMSdoa mo owmuamouomllu manna 25 .Aav cwumsow was .Aav cauooa .Aav mace smwuu .ANV swung» AmV consumauoo .Amv umwmnumwm .AmV :Hououa mOm .AmV Macaw mow .Aeu meow ounouomo> .Amv canuwoos .Anv muowuamuoao .Amv mooquoohfiw Ioaoa .Awav waauo~oo owcmuo was 3oHHoh mundane monoHuaoE hocosvoum woo woo: mououflumnomo 0H me on Ha om OHN . . . . mofluoxmn HH< so am mm o a as maxoou .smsomso .uaaomam ma no Hm 0H no ow . . . . . . . . . gamuom NH mm mm o o w . . . . . . oofi>uom 080m 5 co cod ma ma ad . . . . . afiono muooouu Ma on mm m Ma om . . . . . . . mammoaonz unmouom mwououaumnom hogan cououm mauve; Haocm aspen mo humans «0 mama wagon wwo uncuum> wagon woman mo owouooouom Hoaadz Anoaa .muovosom was cmqsooouv coma .oahom mooaum> ow mousuaumnam wwo no ammo moan: mama ha mouuoxoc mo nooaozllm wanna 26 Table 4--Percentage of confectioners using egg albumen in various forms, or egg substitutes, 1960 (Enochian and Saunders, 1965) Egg form Percentage of firms using8 Percent Liquid egg albumen . . . . . . . . 3 Frozen egg albumen . . . . . . . . 15 Dried egg albumen . . . . . . . . 91 Substitutesb . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8Based on interviews with 34 firms. bSubstitutes used and frequency mentioned include soy albumen (8), gelatin (7), soybean lecithin (6), yellow and orange coloring (6), pectin (5), soy protein (3), agar—agar (2), vegetable gums (l). 27 .mooom hufimwoomo mo auowum> s new .wowomouo roams .omamocomma .HHoH>mu .flaoumoma .moavooc .muoaooum gnaw was umoa .mvoom anon wsaxoa mauwm moosfiooHo .ucoouoa n.o amnu mmoqo .soasngm haumozn .mucoam>wsvo owauwa uoc_.muswwo3 Hmsuom so oommmm oofl o m co m on w.m¢¢ Ho oumcuo cod H mm o o o «.mwm mm . . . . . . . xflaoum cos a s cm no o e.saa em . . . nauseonuummcoo ooh H ms at n N m.-m oHN . . . . . . . museum “causes .msH ooo.H anon ouou anew HH< uaumnsm usage cmuoum unsung samam use some sense muwuamsv mo omauow macaum> a“ mom: mwwo mo owmucoouom owmuo2< nonasz huumooaH “moms .uuoecamm sum amasoocmv coma .mmumum amuse: .voho>uom mowuumovna room An mauow unawuo> :« mouauaumnam wwo was ammo mo ombnlm oHan 28 menu. .BH on. was snags emuaaanmom .nH sou emuannnmum mmm mace: soasw. .nH Ne. was once: emauauuom .sa can was «Hoes emamauuom come. .ss so. Assess anuswv snow .na ems sacs emsmwam name. .na oo.H sacs was enmeamum .sH use sacs was chasm anew. .nH as. messes was anon; enmecmum .ns sea was mace: mama. .ss oi.sw meadow amasss< .sa son when; mom oowua mowua mama wwo vogue mooaua woman wwo cououm nowmum>cou mowua conoum Ansma .ssoosov uooooua mamm ecu you mowHOm wwm vogue mom wwwo cououm mo acmfiumaaoo oowumulo manna 29 yolk. For comparative purposes, New York wholesale shell egg prices, Extra - 70 percent A - White - Large, for April, 1965 averaged 37 to 38-1/2 cents per dozen (U.S.D.A., 1967). OBJECTIVES Even though many advances have been made in the egg solids in- dustry, little attention has been paid to the individual consumer-as a possible customer for egg solids. This experiment was designed to answer the question, "Is there a commercially-available egg solid that compares favorably with fresh eggs for scrambling purposes, possibly the most simple home use?" The objectives were: 1. Tb select and test commercially-available egg solids for consumer preference. 2. Tb determine a method of scrambling eggs, both from fresh eggs' and from egg solids, that would give a true picture of their con- sistency, color, flavor, and texture to the consumer panelists. 3. Tb determine a method of presentation of scrambled eggs to a large number of panel participants. 4. Tb determine preference for samples presented to the consumer panels. 30 PROCEDURE Products to be Tested Three commercially available egg solids products were evaluated in this study. Commercial products were used rather than test tube or laboratory products that might be months or even years away from com- mercial production. The three products evaluated were: Product A - This product was a spray-dried fortified whole egg solid material. It was pasteurized before spray drying and was pro- duced under continuous USDA inspection. This product contained approxi- mately 8% corn syrup and one-half of 1% salt on the liquid basis before it was spray-dried (Pilley, 1966). The product was shipped 25 pounds net weight in a sealed plastic bag enclosed in a fiber-board drum, and required refrigeration. The recommended usage was for scrambled eggs, French toast, and other cooked or baked products. Product A was used in trials 1, 2,_3, and 4. Product B - This product was a spray-dried whole egg solid material. It was pasteurized before spray drying and was produced under continuous USDA inspection. The specifications for this product called for it to be of the highest quality obtainable from commercial sources. Product B was shipped in a fiber carton in 3 pound net weight packages in polyethylene and required refrigeration. The recommended usage was for cookies, layer cakes, pound cakes and other products calling for 31 32 liquid whole eggs except where leavening or foam formation was required (Ballas, 1966). Product B was used in trials 4, 5, and 6. Product C - This product was a patented egg material. The liquid egg mixture was pasteurized and then spray dried under continuous USDA inspection. Fisher (1966) reported that only USDA Grade A eggs were used in production of this product. Quality control measures plus a 1650 F. pasteurization temperature yielded a product that had a nega- tive salmonella count and usually less than 500 bacteria per gram. The product was packed in rigid plastic containers and received no refrigera- tion. Each one pound net weight package of Product C was the equivalent of three dozen fresh eggs. The primary use of this product was for scrambled eggs but could also be used in omelettes, French toast, casseroles, baked desserts or any recipe that called for fresh eggs. Product C was used in trials 7-10. In trials 7 and 10 the manufacturers' directions for use were followed. In trial 8, a dilution of 3 parts Product C and 1 part fresh egg was compared with Product C. In trial 9, an equal amount of pre-cooked pork sausage was mixed with each sample of the egg melange just before scrambling. Panel Participants Four different groups of consumers were used as panel members to evaluate the three products used in this study. In trial 1, 32 members of the Extension Wives Club (Panel A) were used as panel participants. This group was composed of wives of Muchigan State University campus based extension specialists. Each participant was a homemaker and did not have prior experience with the product tested. The panel was 33 conducted as an educational program at one of the regularly scheduled club meetings on April 22, 1966. The Michigan State university - Wayne State University Consumer Panel (Panel B) was used in trials 2 and 10. Afternoon and evening sessions were recorded separately and then as a composite for each trial. This panel was initiated in 1956 to establish consumer prefer— ence among grades, varieties, sizes, color, and processing techniques for agricultural products. According to Marquardt gtugl, (1963), this panel was designed to determine preferences of consumers with annual incomes ranging from $4,000 to $10,000, of ages 30-45, and with 12 to 13 years of formal education. Consumers for the panel were selected at random from listings in the Detroit, Michigan telephone directory and thus were chosen without regard to ability to differentiate qualities of products. Each panel participant was paid a token amount for his time and effort. Trial 2 was held on May 4, 1966 and trial 10 was held on Nbvember 30, 1966. Specific statistics on the panel members were as follows: Trial 2 Trial 10 (1) Number of participants 153 160 (2) Percentage women 72.8 77.1 (3) Percentage men 27.2 22.9 (4) Age range men 3l-over 60 31-60 women 31-over 60 3l-over 60 (5) Income range Under $2,000-over $10,000 Under $2,000-over $10,000 (6) Education range Under 8-over 14 Under 8-over 14 The third group of panelists (Panel C) were Michigan State Univer- sity students taking a Food Science Department course entitled "Food Processing I: Physical Principles" and were used for trial 3, May 26, 1966. This group was included in the study because they were being 34 trained in organoleptic food testing techniques. Specific statistics of the class members were: (1) Number of participants 14 (2) All were men (3) Seniors or graduate students The fourth group of panel members (Panel D) were chosen from the Food Science, Dairy Science, Animal Husbandry, and Poultry Science De- partments of Michigan State university. Panel members were grouped as .secretaries (homemakers), students, and professional staff. Each group was tested and recorded separately and then as a composite for trials 4 through 9, which were held in the period November 7 through November 28, 1966. Specific statistics of the panel members were: Secretaries Students Staff (1) Number participants 14 ll 8 (2) Percentage women 100 10 O (3) Percentage men 0 ,90 100 (4) Age range 22-58 20-35 35-60 (5) Educational level through BS seniors- through Ph.D. graduates Bohren and Jbrdan (1953) stated that after considerable time and effort had been expended, it became obvious that a consistent and re- liable scoring panel for dried egg samples could not be developed from the relatively small number of candidates available. Thus, because of limited numbers, panels A, C, and D were used as screening panels as an aid in developing procedures and techniques as well as for evaluating (products. A tabular presentation of the experimental design is provided in Table 7. 35 Table 7--Tabular presentation of the experimental design Product Panel Trial number A B C Fresh egg A B C D 1 x x x 2 x x x 3 x x x 4 x x x 5 x x x 6 x x x 7 x x x 8 x x x 9 x x x 10 x x x Presentation of Samples A method of scrambling eggs, both from fresh eggs and from egg solids, that would give a true repeatability picture of their consistency, color, flavor, and palatability was necessary. Also, it was necessary that the method lend itself to the preparation of scrambled eggs for a large number of panel participants. To prepare samples for Official United States Standards for Palatability Scores for Dried Whole Eggs the following procedure shall be followed (U.S.D.A., 1967). Reconstitute 33 grams of dried whole egg powder as completely as possible with 90 grams of distilled water in a 250 to 400 ml. pyrex beaker by adding a third of the water, mixing until smooth and then adding the remainder of the water slowly while stirring. 36 Place the beaker in gently boiling water and stir the reconstituted egg while coagulation takes place. When coagulated to the consistency of scrrunbled eggs, the sample is ready for the palatability test. This method proved to be too time consuming for presenting samples to larger runnbers of panel members. A.method using stainless steel pans 23 X 40 X 10 cm. placed in a gelltly boiling water bath was tried. For the purposes of this study, thJJB method proved to be inadequate because sample consistency was not repeatable. The scrambling of eggs in electric frypans was also tried and evwiluated. The results from these tests were inconsistent due, in all Ptnabability, to the difference in the settings and readings of the Self-contained thermostats. The method of choice was the use of 25 cm. Teflon—coated fry Pans on rheostatically controlled electric heating units. These e3~Ectric units provided an easily controllable constant source of heat. 'ITle Teflon-coated fry pans were quickly and easily cleanable between Q~<1>okings. The 25 cm. size proved to be adequate for the purposes of this test. Nylon spoons were used to stir the samples while cooking. Directions of Marquardt (1964) on presenting samples to a panel ware followed. All samples were placed in identical containers. The Samples were identified by symbols rather than by numbers, letters, or name. The code was such that no implied order was suggested. A standardized form on which panel members recorded their pref— erence was used and is shown in Appendix A. 37 To avoid the possibility of a mix-up in the samples, one Teflon— coated fry pan was marked ( ) on the handle, one was marked % and one was marked # -- these marks corresponded to the marks on the test cards. Idenitical marks were placed on the egg melange containers and on the serving platters. Before panel members were permitted to enter the room where the Sannples were, the triangle test, except in trial 3 where a hedonic scale test was used, was explained in detail. Instructions were given on fiJJling out their test cards. No comments were asked for, so those that were given were spontaneous. Approximately one teaspoon of warm scrambled eggs from each SEimple was presented to each panel member. These samples were presented 011 sectional paper plates which had been marked with the test symbols ‘Vilth a wax pencil. Panel members used plastic forks or spoons with ‘quich to taste the sample. Salt and pepper were available for those who wanted to use either or both. 8 tatistical Procedure Since scrambled fresh eggs were to be compared with scrambled €133 solids, an analytical method lending itself to statistical analysis was desirable. Roessler g£_al, (1948) stated that the "triangular test" or odd Sample method, is useful in comparing two samples which are essentially alike. In this test the taster is served, at the same time, three samples identified only by symbols and is aware that two of the samples are identical, the other different. He is asked two questions: ”Which is the odd sample?" and ”Which do you prefer, the odd or like sample?" 38 Since the test is triangular, the probability p of a taster guessing the right sequence is one-third, and the probability q of an incorrect guess is two-thirds. By chance alone the expected numbers of correct answers, therefore, for n tasters would be n/3 and the number Of incorrect 2n/3. The standard error of the distribution is VHF-(TI?) which is equal to V2173. If y denotes the observed number of correct answers, then the normal deviate, applying a cor- rection for continuity, would be y - ”n, - 0.5 3 \/‘__'2n 3 at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels of significance the values of this ratio are, respectively, 1.960, 2.576, and 3.291. This leads to three proportions for determining the values of y at these three levels of Significance: At the 0.05 level, 3 = 1.960 V13 3 y = n+0.5 + 0.9239\/ n 3 At the 0.01 level, y - fl — 0 5 3 Vin: 2.576 3 y = +0.5 +1.214\/ n” E 3 39 At the 0.001 level, 3 VflZ—rf— 3 y = B.+ 0.5 + 1.551 \\j n__ 3 Ir1.Appendix C are tabulated, for various numbers of tests, the number of Ctxrrect answers, as calculated from the above expressions, at the 0.05, O.()1, and 0.001 levels necessary to establish significant differentia- thDH. Roessler_g£flal. (1956), base their data for Appendix D on cumu- léitive terms of the binomial distribution which indicate the number of agreeing judgements (two-tail) or correct answers (one-tail) required fkar significance in the triangular (p = 1/6) system, where p is the IJrObability of a correct guess. This is applicable where p = 1/3 for tile triangle test and p = 1/2 for the paired test (preference) which Dneans that 1/3 times 1/2 equals 1/6. For values of n (number of tasters) not in the table, formulas 1based on the corrected normal-curve approximations to binomial distri- tJution may be used for determining required numbers of agreeing judge- tnents for significance. For n tasters and p = 1/6 the observed number <>f agreeing judgements (two—tail) or correct answers (one-tail) must exceed _n_+ 0.5 + z \\/ 5n 6 6 where for the two—tailed test at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels of significance the values of z are, respectively, 1.960, 2.576, and 3.291 40 and for the one-tailed test the values of z are respectively, 1.645, 2.326, and 3.090. In trial 3 a hedonic scale test for the evaluation of scrambled egg solids was used because of testing procedures used by the class in- structor. According to Marquardt (1964), the hedonic scale method of evaluating one sample is a very easy test to construct, explain to panelists, and to analyze. The results from a single product hedonic rating test are usually analyzed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the response for the. product. This is done by assigning numerical Values to the points on the hedonic scale, Appendix B. RESULTS AND DI SCUSSION Trial. 1 The 32 panel members (Panel A) returned 28 completed-usable-cards. Of these 28 individuals, 22 correctly-picked the fresh egg sample as the different sample (Table 8). The differences shown by these‘data were very highly significant (P < .001). Of those correctly-picking the dif- ferent sample, 14 preferred the different sample, the fresh eggs. The differences shown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). Table 8--Acceptance of Product A, the fortified whole egg solid, by Panel A (Trial 1) Different Sample Identical Sample Identical Sample (Fresh Eggs) (Product A) (Product A) Preference Preference Preference Different Sample 14 Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample __8 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 3 Total 22 2 4 Total number of panel members 28 ‘Number of panel members identifying different sample 22a Number of panelists preferring the fresh eggs 14b Number of panelists preferring Product A 8 ¥ aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). bSignificant preference (P < .001). 41 42 Data from trial 1 showed that in this instance the fresh eggs could be differentiated from Product A and that the panel members definitely preferred the fresh eggs. lhmial 2 The 55 panel members evaluating products during the afternoon session (Panel B) returned 52 completed-usable-cards. The fresh egg Séunple was correctly picked as the different sample by 28 of these 52 Panel members (Table 9). The differences shown by these data were Ilighly significant (P < .01). Of those correctly picking the different Saunple, the fresh eggs, 23 preferred the different sample. The differ- eruzes shown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). During the evening session, 98 panel members evaluated products éand returned 92 completed-usable-cards. The different sample, the fresh iEggs, was picked by 57 of 92 panel members (Table 9). The differences E§hown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). The dif- 15erent sample, the fresh eggs, was preferred by 49 of those correctly I>icking the different sample. The differences shown by these data were \rery highly significant (P < .001). Combined data from the afternoon and evening panels showed that 153 panel members evaluated products and that 144 completed-usable-cards ‘were returned. The fresh egg sample was correctly picked as the dif- ferent sample by 85 of the 144 individuals (Table 9). Differences shown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). The fresh eggs were preferred by 72 of those correctly picking them as the different sample. Differences shown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). 43 Table 9—-Acceptance of Product A, the fortified whole egg solid, by Panel B (Trial 2) Different Sample Identical Sample Identical Sample (Fresh Eggs) (Product A) (Product A) Preference Preference Preference Aggternoon Different Sample 23 Different Sample 1 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 5 Identical Sample 19 Identical Sample 3 Total '273' "2'6 "27 Evening Different Sample 49 Different Sample 3 Different Sample 4 IIdentical Sample 8 Identical Sample 6 Identical Sample 22 Total '57 ‘5 '2‘6‘ .Combining lbifferent Sample 72 Different Sample 4 Different Sample 5 Identical Sample 13 Identical Sample 25 Identical Sample 25 Combined Total 8-5— 2—9- 30 E Total number of panel members 144 lfimmber of panel members identifying different sample 85a lfiumber of panelists preferring the fresh eggs 72b Number of panelists preferring Product A 13 ‘ aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). b Significant preference (P < .001). 44 In this trial, 58.53 percent of the men and 59.22 percent of the women correctly picked the different sample, the fresh eggs. The fresh eggs were preferred by 88.52 percent of the women and by 83.33 percent of the men. Unsolicited comments from the panel members of trial 2 are listed in Appendix E. The most consistent complaint was that Product A, the fortified whole egg was too sweet. Trial 3 Panel C scored Product A 3.5 out of a possible 7 on a hedonic Scale test (Appendix B). This 3.5 score actually amounted to a dislike- slightly rating. The class members downgraded the product because of 1 ts sweetness . Trial 4 Complaints that Product A was too sweet were consistent in the fiirst 3 trials. In an attempt to determine the validity of the complaint c’fsweetness, a non-fortified whole egg solid of the highest quality obtainable from commercial sources (Product B) was obtained for use in the next series of trials. In this trial 23 out of 26 panel members (Panel D) correctly I>icked Product A as the different sample (Table 10). Differences shown ‘by these data were very highly significant (P‘< .001). Product B, the identical sample, was preferred by 14 of those correctly picking Product A as the different sample. Differences shown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). 45 Table 10--Acceptance of Product A, the fortified whole egg solid, vs. Product B, the whole egg solid, by Panel D (Trial 4) Identical Sample Different Sample Identical Sample (Product B) (Product A) (Product B) Preference Preference Preference £3tudent Different Sample 0 Different Sample 5 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 6 Identical Sample 0 Tbtal 0‘ ll— 0' :EB‘taff Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 5 Identical Sample 0 Tbtal 0' -75 11 S ecretaries Different Sample 0 Different Sample 4 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 3 Identical Sample 1 Total 1‘ -77 '2 Combining Different Sample 0 Different Sample 9 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 14 Identical Sample 1 Grand Tbtal 1‘ 23' '2 E Total number of panel members 25 Number of panel members identifying different sample 23a Number of panelists preferring Product B 14b Number of panelists preferring Product A 9 aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). bSignificant preference (P < .001). 46 Panel members in trial 4 experienced no difficulty in distin- guishing between Product A and Product B. They expressed a very definite preference for Product B - the whole egg over Product A - the fortified egg. Trial 5 Without exception in trial 5, panel members picked the fresh eggs as the different sample and without exception they preferred the fresh eggs to Product B. These data are tabulated in Table 11. Trial 6 In trial 6, 31 of 33 panel members correctly picked the Pro- duct B sample as the different sample. All 31 of those correctly picking Product B as the different sample preferred the fresh eggs. Thus, the results in trial 6 tend to confirm those obtained in trial 5. The trial 6 data are tabulated in Table 12. Trial 7 Panel members returned 33 usable cards for trial 7. Product C was picked as the different sample by 30 out of 33 panel members (Table 13). Differences shown by these data were very highly signifi- cant (P < .001). The identical samples, the fresh eggs were preferred by 28 panel members over Product C. Differences shown by these data were very highly significant (P < .001). The panel (Panel D) had little trouble distinguishing between Product C and fresh eggs. Fresh eggs were overwhelmingly preferred to Product C. However, the comments on Product C were: 47 Table ll--Acceptance of Product B, the whole egg solid, by Panel D Identical Sample (Trial 5) Identical Sample Different Sample (Product B) (Product B) (Fresh Eggs) Preference Preference Preference Students Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 11 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Total 0. 0’ .11 Staff Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 5 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Total 0‘ 0” 5- Secretaries Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 10 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Total 0‘ 0' 10~ Combining Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 26 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Combined Total 6 6 '23 Total number of panel members 26 a Number of panel members identifying different sample 26 b Number of panelists preferring the fresh eggs 26 Number of panelists preferring Product B aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). bSignificant preference (P < .001). 48 Table 12--Acceptance of Product B, the whole egg solid, by Panel D (Trial 6) Identical Sample Different Sample Identical Sample (Fresh Eggs) (Product B) (Fresh Eggs) Preference Preference Preference Students Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 10 Identical Sample 0 Total '6 I6 6 M Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 8 Identical Sample 0 Total 0' 8' '1 Secretaries Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 13 Identical Sample 0 Total I. '13 0' Combining Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 31 Identical Sample 0 Combined Total I“ '31 1- Total number of panel members 33 Number of panel members identifying different sample 31a Number of panel members preferring the fresh egg 31b Number of panel members preferring Product B 0 aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). b Significant preference (P < .001). 49 Table l3--Acceptance of Product C, a patented egg product, by Panel D (Trial 7) Identical Sample Identical Sample Different Sample (Fresh Eggs) (Fresh Eggs) (Product C) Preference Preference Preference Students Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 9 Total 0 0 10 21% Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 8 Total 1— 0 8 Secretaries Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 11 Total 1' 1‘ 12. Combining Different Sample 2 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 2 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 28 Combined Total 2' 1‘ '30- Total number of panel members 33 Number of panel members identifying different sample 303 Number of panelists preferring the fresh eggs 28b Number of panelists preferring Product C 2 aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). bSignificant preference (P < .001). 50 (1) Really nice flavor. (2) Different sample is improved. (3) Improved in consistency and flavor. (4) Bland-taste dry. (5) Texture better. (6) Samples were more identical in appearance and texture. (7) I'm inclined to like it. (8) It's improving. (9) All samples very good. (10) Preference not so strong as before. (11) Like the different sample. (12) All have equally good texture. Trial 8 0f the 31 panel members returning usable cards, only 14 deter— mined that the dilution was the different sample. Differences in these data showed no significance. However, 13 of those properly differen- tiating the different sample preferred diluted Product C and this was highly significant (P < .01). When the data presented in Table 14 were studied it appeared that the secretaries were able to identify the fresh egg taste more accurately than either the students or staff members. Trial 9 In trial 9, 31 usable cards were returned. The fresh egg-sausage sample was correctly picked as the different sample by 23 out of 31 individuals (Table 15). Differences shown by these data were very 51 Table l4—-Effect of diluting Product C, a patented egg product, with fresh eggs and acceptance by Panel D (Trial 8) Different Sample Identical Sample Identical Sample (Diluted Product C) (Product C) (Product C) Preference Preference Preference Students Different Sample 2 Different Sample 3 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 3 Total 3” 4‘ :4 £22 Different Sample 3 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 3 Identical Sample 0 Total 3. 3‘ I; Secretaries Different Sample 8 Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 3 Identical Sample 2 Total 8 Z 2 Combining Different Sample 13 Different Sample 4 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 1 Identical Sample 7 Identical Sample 5 Combined Total 14 11 6 Total number of panel members 31 Number of panel members identifying the different sample 14 Number of panelists preferring the dilution 13a Number of panelists preferring Product C l aSignificant preference (P < .01). 52 Table 15--Effect of the addition of sausage to Product C, a patented Different Sample (Fresh Eggs-Sausage) Identical Sample (Product C - Sausage) egg product, and acceptance by Panel D (Trial 9) Identical Sample (Product Cp- Sausage) Preference Preference Preference Students Different Sample 5 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 2 Identical Sample 2 Identical Sample 2 Total 7 2 2 itifi Different Sample 0 Different Sample 1 Different Sample 0 Identical Sample 5 Identical Sample 0 Identical Sample 0 Total 5 1 0 Secretaries Different Sample 6 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 5 Identical Sample 2 Identical Sample 0 Total I: 2 1 Combining Different Sample 11 Different Sample 1 Different Sample 1 Identical Sample 12 Identical Sample 4 Identical Sample 2 Combined Total 23' 5‘ 3- Total number of panel members 31 Number of panel members identifying the different sample 238 Number of panelists preferring Product C — Sausage 12b Number of panelists preferring the Fresh Eggs-Sausage 11 aSignificant differentiation (P < .001). bSignificant preference (P < .01). 53 highly significant (P < .001). The Product C—sausage sample was pre— ferred by 12 of those properly differentiating the different sample. Differences shown by these data were highly significant (P < .01). Panel members picked the different sample, fresh eggs-sausage, without too much trouble. Of those who could tell the difference be- tween the samples, 52.2 percent preferred the Product C-sausage sample to the fresh egg-sausage sample. Trial 10 At the afternoon session (Panel B), 66 usable cards were returned. The fresh eggs were correctly picked as the different sample by 38 in- dividuals (Table 16). Differences shown by these data were very highly significant (P'< .001). Product C was preferred by 27 of those properly differentiating the different sample and this was very highly significant (P‘< .001). At the evening session, 89 completed—usable-cards were returned. Product C was correctly picked as the different sample by 76 out of 89 individuals. This was very highly significant (P‘< .001). Fresh eggs were preferred by 44 of those properly differentiating the different sample. This was very highly significant (P < .001). When the data from the afternoon and evening panels were com- bined, 114 out of 155 individuals correctly picked the different sample. This was very highly significant (P < .001). On a percentage basis, 76.31 percent of the women and 65.85 percent of the men properly picked the odd sample. Product C was preferred by 59 of those properly dif- ferentiating the different sample. This was very highly significant 54 Table l6--Acceptance of Product C, a patented egg product, by Panel B (Trial 10) Afternoon Panel Identical Sample Identical Sample Different Sample (Product C) (Product C) (Fresh Eggs) Preference Preference Preference Different Sample 6 Different Sample 10 Different Sample 11 Identical Sample 3 Identical Sample 9 Identical Sample 27 Total 9' I9- '38 EveniggTPanel Identical Sample Identical Sample Different Sample (Fresh Eggs) (Fresh Eggs) (Product C) Different Sample 5 Different Sample 0 Different Sample 32 Identical Sample 3 Identical Sample 5 Identical Sample 44 Total 8' 5. '76 Combining:Preferences Product C Fresh Eggs Afternoon 27 11 Evening 32 44 Tbtal 59' '55 Tbtal number of panel members 155 Nmmber of panel members identifying different sample 114a Number of panelists preferring Product C 59b Number of panelists preferring the fresh eggs 55 aSignificant differentiation (P‘< .001). bSignificant preference (P < .001). 55 (P < .001). Product C was preferred by 52.87 percent of the women and by only 48.15 of the men. The combined average was a 51.75 percent preference for Product C. On the basis of the data obtained in trial 10, Product C was preferred to fresh eggs. General Discussion Pilley (1966) stated that Product A, a fortified whole egg solid, was perhaps the largest seller of egg solids to schools and institutions and that the small addition of syrup as used for the purposes outlined was necessary and had certainly been well accepted. Panelists on this research problem complained about the sweetness of this product when used for scrambling purposes. Data from this experiment indicates that consumers would reject this product for scrambling purposes. Product B, a high quality commercially available whole egg solid, was preferred by the panel members to Product A. However, when Product B was compared with fresh eggs, panelists were 100 percent in their preference for the fresh eggs. Some of the comments concerning Product B were almost a repeat of those complaints heard during WOrld War II: "texture not good", "slightly rancid”, "flavor poor", "strong", "Ugh", "tastes like dried eggs". Product C, the patented egg product, was used in trials 7, 8, and 9 and evaluated by Panel D. According to these panel members, this new product was very good. It was almost identical in color, flavor, texture, appearance, and consistency with fresh eggs. Panel B, in trial 10, had even more trouble than Panel D in differentiating between the patented egg product and fresh eggs. Graduate students could not 56 tell the difference between the two products while cooking the samples and then serving panel members. Halverson (1967) indicates that by 1975 between 13 and 30 percent of all eggs consumed will be in the form of egg products. Dunk (1967) requests that we not let our capacity to produce egg products outstrip our ability to find a profitable market for these products. The results of the tests carried out in this experiment indicate that egg solid products that are commercially available can be used to replace fresh eggs for scrambling purposes. The manufacturing and marketing of egg solids comparable to Product C could answer the question raised by Dunk (1967) and make the statement of Halverson (1967) come true. Despite statistical differences observed markets may be available for each of the products studied because 6 of 28 individuals in trial 1, 59 of 144 in trial 2, 3 of 26 in trial 4, 2 of 33 in trial 6, 3 of 30 in trial 7, 17 of 31 in trial 8, 8 of 31 in trial 9, and 41 of 155 in trial 10 could not identify the difference between products. Differences in age, education, sex, and income did not statis- tically influence the results obtained. SUMMARY Data from trials 1 and 2 indicated (P < .001) that the fresh eggs were preferred to Product A, a fortified whole egg product. Numerous complaints were made that these egg solids were too sweet. Data from trial 3, a Hedonic_Sca1e Test, showed a dislike—slightly rating. Down-grading was due partially to the sweetness. Data from trial 4 showed that panelists had a very definite preference (P < .001) for non-fortified whole egg solids Product B when compared with fortified whole egg solids Product A. Data from trials 5 and 6, in which fresh eggs were compared with non-fortified whole egg solids (Product B), showed that panel members were unanimous in their preference of fresh eggs. In trial 7, fresh eggs were preferred to Product C, a patented egg product. The panel indicated that Product C was good but that they preferred fresh eggs. Data from trial 8 showed that the panelists preferred Product C diluted with fresh eggs over straight Product C. Even though sausage was used in trial 9 to mask the egg flavor, the panel showed a preference for Product C over fresh eggs. The consumer panel used in trial 10 significantly differentiated (P < .001) between fresh eggs and Product C. Those that could tell the difference between the samples presented, preferred Product C. 57 CONCLUSIONS The triangle method of sample presentation was used to determine consumer preferences between scrambled fresh eggs and scrambled egg solids. The results from the ten trials of this experiment indicate that: 1. Fortified whole egg solids (containing 8% corn syrup before drying) were too sweet to be readily acceptable to consumers for scrambling purposes when fresh eggs were available. 2. Whole egg solids (a non-fortified whole egg solid) were preferred to fortified whole egg solids for scrambling pur- poses. 3. Fresh eggs scrambled were definitely preferred to scrambled whole egg solids. 4. A patented egg product was preferred to fresh eggs. Thus it appears that the patented egg product will compare favorably with fresh eggs as to odor, texture, palatability, and cost for scrambling purposes. 58 LITERATURE CITED Anonymous, 1966. Mbve by egg products firm signals another facet in the new egg industry. A.P.H.F. News, 43 (4): 8, l3. Ballas, M., 1965. Personal communication. Ballas, M., 1966. Personal communication. Bergquist, D. H., 1964. Eggs, Food Dehydration, the AVI Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut. Bigelow, K. D., 1959, Readers Digest, September, pp. 17—18. Bohren, B. B. and R. Jordan, 1953. A technique for detecting flavor changes in stored dried eggs. Food Res. 18: 583-591. Brooks, J. and D. J. Taylor, 1955. Food investigation. Special report no. 60, Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research, London. Cicciu, A. P., 1965. Performance and economic comparison of egg pro- ducts. Conference on Eggs and Baking, American Institute of Baking, Chicago, May 25-26. Drews, H. E., 1966. Egg breaking is moving to where the eggs are. Poultry Tribune 72 (9): 28_29, 52. Dunk, M. R., 1967. Looking ahead. Poultry Tribune 73 (11): 74. Enochian, R. V., and R. F. Saunders, 1963. Present and potential use of egg products in the food manufacturing industry. Marketing Research Report No. 608, U.S.D.A. Faddoul, G. P., 1963. Salmonella infections in the poultry industry. Merck Agricultural Memo, 8: (3) Fall. Feeney, R. E., 1955. The properties of eggs in relation to baking and pre-mixes. The Bakers Digest 29 (l):3. Fisher, C. D., 1966. Personal communication. Forsythe, R., and T. Miyahara, 1959. The use of modern egg solids in baking. The Bakers Digest 33(4). 59 60 Galton, M. M., 1964. Justification for pasteurization of dried, liquid, or frozen eggs. Report No. 30 - Salmonella Surveillance, Veterinary Public Health Laboratory, C.D.C., Atlanta. Goresline, H. E., 1954. Thermal pasteurization for control of salmonella in dehydrated eggs. Stability of Dehydrated Eggs - A Symposium, University of Chicago, February 12-13, 1953. Halverson, F., 1967. What's the future of egg products? Poultry Tribune 73(11): 28, 46. Kahlenberg, O. J., 1963. The poultry industry in the North Central States, The egg products industry of 1970. North Central Poultry Production. Keith, H. J., 1914. The Battle of Trenton, H. S. Keith Company, Boston, p. 34. Kbudele, J. W., and E. C. Heinsohn, 1960. The egg products.industry of the United States. Part I — Historical highlights, Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 423. Koudele, J. W., and E. C. Heinsohn, 1964. The egg products industry of the United States. Part II - Economic and technological trends, 1936- 61. Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 466. Kraft, A. A., G. S. Torrey, J. C. Ayres, and R. H. Forsythe, 1967. Factors influencing bacterial contamination of commercially produced liquid egg. Poultry Sci. 46: 1204-1210. Lineweaver, H., and R. E. Feeney, 1950-51. Improving frozen and dried eggs. U.S.D.A. Yearbook of Agriculture, pp. 642-647. Marquardt, R. A., 1964. An evaluation of the methods used in designing .and analyzing consumer preference studies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Marquardt, R. A., A. M. Pearson, H. E. Larzelere, and W. S. Greig, 1963. Use of the balanced lattice design in determining consumer preference for ham containing sixteen different combinations of salt and sugar. J. Food Sci. 28: 421~428. Miller, A. E., 1945. Dried egg processing. Food Res. 10: 12-14. Mundt, J. 0., and R. L. Tugwell, 1958. The relationship of the chicken egg to selected paratyphoids. Poultry Sci. 37: 415-419. Newell, C. 0., 1966. Talk at the FlintmThumb Area Poultry School, Flint, Michigan. 61 Pennington, M. E., 1916. A study of the preparation of frozen and dried eggs in the producing section. Bureau of Chemistry, U.S.D.A., Bul. 224, p. 6. Pilley, F. E., 1966. Personal communication. Pollick, H., 1946. Science Newsletter. Mbunt Sinai Hospital, New York, October 19. Roessler, E. B., J. Warren, and J. F. Guymon,.1948. Significance in triangular taste tests. Food Res. 13: 503-505. Roessler, E. B., G. A. Baker, and M. A. Amerine, 1956. One-tailed and two-tailed tests in organoleptic comparisons. Food Res. 21: 117-121. Stewart, G. F., 1944. Coordinated dried egg research program, report no. 2. December 10, p. 63. Thgwell, R. L. and J. O. Mundt, 1957. Salmonella infections and egg contamination. Tennessee Farm and Home Science, Progress Report No. 23, September. Turnbull, D. M., 1964. Letter to all state and national A.P.H.F. officers. March 17. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1941. Eggs and egg products. Circular 583, U.S.D.A., p. 70. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1941. The poultry and egg situation. BAE, U.S.D.A., September, p. 12. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1943. The poultry and egg situation. BAE, U.S.D.A. p. 16. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1946. The poultry and egg situation. BAE, U.S.D.A., April-June, p. 5. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1950. A report on the status of glucose—free whole egg powder. Western Regional Research Laboratory, U.S.D.A., p. 2. U. S. Department of Agriculture 1953. Poultry and eggs & liquid, frozen, and dried egg production, 1938-49. Revised estimates U.S.D.A., Sept., p. 24. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1964. Shell egg grading and inspection of egg products, Poultry Division, AMS, U.S.D.A., Marketing Bul. No. 30, June, p. 21. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1965. Pasteurizing egg white. Agri- cultural Research, September. 62 U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1967. Regulation governing the grading and inspection of egg products (7 CFR Part 55) Poultry Division, CMS, U.S.D.A., January, pp. 11, 16. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1967. Poultry and egg situation 246, ERS’ U.SODOAO , April.) Vbss, L. A., 1961. Liquid yield from some Missouri Random Sample Test entries. Poultry Science 40: 1466. Wilhelm, L. A., 1966. Poultry and Egg National Board letter to extension poultry specialists, January. ' APPENDICES 64 APPENDIX A SAMPLE TRIANGLE TEST RECORD CARD TRIANGLE TEST NAME DATE TEST 1. TWO of these samples are identical, and one is different. Taste the 3 samples, then check below the different sample. ( ) Z # 2. Please check which you prefer: Different sample Identical sample Comments: Name: 65 APPENDIX B SAMPLE HEDONIC SCALE RECORD CARD Preference Test Sample No: Like Extremely Like Very much Like Like ‘Extremely Like Slightly Neither like Nor dislike Dislike Slightly _Dislike very much Like Slightly Neither like Nor dislike Dislike Very much Dislike Slightly Dislike Extremely PLEASE Standard Vbid Foreign Accept Reject Very much Dislike Extremely 0 CHECK ONE OF THE Standard Vbid Foreign Accept Reject Date: Like Like Extremely Like very much Like Extremely Like Slightly Neither like Very much Like Nor dislike Dislike Slightly Neither like Nor dislike Dislike Slightly Dislike PEry much Dislike Slightly Dislike Extremely FOLLOWING: Standard VOid Foreign Accept Reject very much Dislike Extremely Standard Vbid Foreign Accept Reject 66 APPENDIX C PROBABILITY IN TRIANGULAR TASTE TESTS N3. of No. of corEEct answers necessary Nb. of ITO. of correct answers necessary tasters to establish significant tasters to establish significant or differentiation or differentiation may: P=0. 05 P=0. 01 9:0. 001 tasting: P=0. 05 P=0. 01 P=0. 001 7 5 6 7 57 27 29 31 8 6 7 8 58 27 29 32 9 6 7 8 59 27 3O 32 10 7 8 9 60 28 30 33 11 7 8 9 61 28 30 33 12 8 9 10 62 28 31 33 13 8 9 10 63 29 31 34 14 9 10 11 64 29 32 34 15 9 10 12 65 30 32 35 16 10 11 12 66 30 32 35 17 10 11 13 67 30 33 36 18 10 12 13 68 31 33 36 19 11 12 14 69 31 34 36 20 11 13 14 70 32 34 37 21 12 13 15 71 32 34 37 22 12 14 15 72 32 35 38 23 13 14 16 73 33 35 38 24 13 14 16 74 33 36 39 25 13 15 17 75 34 36 39 26 14 15 17 76 34 36 39 27 14 16 18 77 34 37 40 28 15 16 18 78 35 37 40 29 15 17 19 79 35 38 41 30 16 17 19 80 35 38 41 31 16 18 19 81 36 38 41 32 16 18 20 82 36 39 42 33 17 19 20 83 37 39 42 34 17 19 21 84 37 40 43 35 18 19 21 85 37 40 43 36 18 20 22 86 38 40 44 37 18 20 22 87 38 41 44 38 19 21 23 88 39 41 44 39 19 21 23 89 39 42 45 40 2O 22 24 90 39 42 45 41 20 22 24 91 40 42 46 42 21 22 25 92 40 43 46 43 21 23 25 93 40 43 46 44 21 23 25 94 41 44 47 45 22 24 26 95 41 44 47 46 22 24 26 96 42 44 48 47 23 25 27 97 42 45 48 48 23 25 27 98 42 45 49 49 23 25 28 99 43 46 49 50 24 26 28 100 43 46 , 49 51 24 26 29 200 80 84 89 52 25 27 29 300 117 122 127 53 25 27 29 400 152 158 165 54 25 27 30 500 188 194 202 55 26 28 30 1,000 363 372 383 56 26 28 31 2.000 709 722 737 67 APPENDIX D SIGNIFICANCE IN TRIANGULAR TASTE TESTS (p = 1/6) No. of Minimum agreeing judgments necessary to Minimum correct answers necessary to taSters eStablish significant differentiation establish significant differentiation or (Two-tail test) (One-tail test) tasungg P=0 05 P=0.01 P=0.001 P=0.05 P=0 01 P=0.001 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 4 5 7 4 5 6 4 5 6 8 5 5 6 4 5 6 9 5 6 7 4 5 7 10 5 6 7 5 6 7 11 5 6 8 5 6 7 12 6 7 8 5 6 8 13 6 7 8 5 7 8 14 6 7 9 6 7 8 15 7 8 9 6 7 9 16 7 8 9 6 7 9 17 7 8 10 7 8 9 18 7 9 10 7 8 10 19 8 9 10 7 8 10 20 8 9 11 7 9 10 21 8 9 11 7 9 10 22 8 10 11 8 9 11 23 9 10 12 8 9 11 24 9 10 12 8 10 11 25 9 10 12 8 10 12 26 9 11 12 9 10 12 27 10 11 13 9 10 12 28 10 11 13 9 11 12 29 10 12 13 9 11 13 3O 10 12 14 10 11 13 31 11 12 14 10 11 13 32 11 12 14 10 12 13 33 11 13 14 10 12 14 34 11 13 15 10 12 14 35 11 13 15 11 12 14 36 11 13 15 11 13 15 37 12 14 16 11 13 15 38 12 14 16 11 13 15 39 12 14 16 12 13 15 40 13 14 16 12 14 16 41 13 15 17 12 14 16 42 13 15 17 12 14 16 43 13 15 17 12 14 17 44 13 15 17 13 15 17 45 14 15 18 13 15 17 46 14 16 18 13 15 17 47 14 16 18 13 15 18 48 14 16 18 14 15 18 49 15 16 19 14 16 18 50 15 16 19 14 16 18 6O 17 19 21 16 18 21 70 19 21 24 18 21 23 80 21 24 26 20 23 26 90 23 26 29 22 25 28 100 26 28 31 24 27 30 68 APPENDIX E UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM PANEL B (Trial 2) Afternoon Panel Sample Member Picked as VNumber Different Preference Comments 6 (.) Identical Very Good! 13 (.) Different ZMy first impression of the identical samples were of powdered eggs. 17 Z Identical Didn't like any but identical seemed better. 18 ( ) Different The different sample tastes .like real eggs. Other two tastes like powdered eggs. 25 ( ) Different Different sample tastes more natural. 29 ( ) Different I didn't like any of the ' samples too well. 30 (,) Different The identical taste sweet. 31 ( ) Different Didn't think the other two tasted very good. 33 (_) Different Identical samples too sweet. 38 (.) Different It really didn't taste too much like scrambled eggs! 44 ( ) Different Different sample very good. 47 ( ) Different -Sure glad I need not eat the identical samples always! 69 Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 48 (_) Different Identical tasted sweet. 52 Z None Taste like-it was fried in fish oil. (,) was the different sample - Fresh Eggs Z and # were identical samples - Product A 70 APPENDIX F UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM PANEL B (Trial 2) Evening Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 57 ( ) Different Identical are too sweet. 66 ( ) Different Identical Ugh! 76 ( ) Different Both taste lousy. 84 ( ) Identical Different has salt on. 85 # Identical Seems to be sweeter tasting. 90 Z Identical Very good. 91 Z Could be same egg with sea- soning added. 98 ( ) Different Eggs are my favorite break- fast. 106 ( ) Either I eat them all unless they are absolutely putrid. 115 ( ) Different The identical samples are terribly terrible. 118 ( ) Different Could taste sweetness and oil of some kind. 126 ( ) Different Others have a sweet taste. 127 ( ) Different Tastes natural. 132 # Identical Both are palatable. 134 ( ) Different Different samples have sweet taste. 71 Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 138 ( ) Different The identical samples seemed to have too sweet a flavor that spoiled the taste. 141 # Identical Different sample has bitter- tarty taste. 142 Z Identical I like the identical taste better. The other tastes sort of sweet or something added to it. 144 ( ) Different The identical samples were too sweet tasting. 145 Z Different Very good. 150 ( ) Different Different sample is more flavorable - others are very flat and tasteless. 152 ( ) Different Identical samples are too doughie and much perfume. 153 ( ) Identical Sweet! Good! I've never ————_—_—_-—_———_———————_——I-———————_—— tasted a "sweet" egg before so usually eat scrambled eggs with jelly! ( ) was the different sample - Fresh Eggs Z and # were identical samples - Product A 72 APPENDIX C UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM PANEL B (Trial 10) Afternoon Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 3 # Different Taste the most like real eggs. 20 Z Identical Identical samples tastier. 21 # Different Others tasted as if something were added. 24 ( ) Different Different sample had salt in it. 26 # Identical Was somewhat colder than other two. Maybe that made it seem different. 31 # Identical Tasted like they had cheese added to them. 34 ( ) Identical Different sample tasted like dried first. 36 Z Identical They are very close in flavor. 4O # Identical The different sample has an odd taste - as it would be with dried eggs. 44 Z Different They all taste pretty well. 47 ( ) Identical My eyes told me one thing. My tongue another. I'm still not real real sure. To be honest couldn't tell that much. Both weren't the very best. 50 Z Different All too sweet. I I i l I I Panel “Member Number 20 21 24 26 31 34 36 40 44 47 50 (:jizyiwnaz /<:1é;’ ,/<712f9’¢/ M/a/&€(Z/%/ f) 9 # # Z # Z () Z Identical Identical Identical Identical Identical Different Identical Different 73, eal eggs. tier. omething salt in Was somewhat colder than other two. Maybe that made it seem different. Tasted like they had cheese added to them. Different sample tasted like dried first. They are very close in flavor. The different sample has an odd taste - as it would be with dried eggs. They all taste pretty well. My eyes told me one thing. My tongue another. I'm still not real real sure. To be honest couldn't tell that much. Both weren't the very best. All too sweet. 73 Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 55 Z Identical The identical tastes fresher. 57 Z Different Very good! If I prepared eggs like that my family would eat them. What's your secret? 64 # Identical The identical samples didn't seem to have that flat taste. 65 # Different Different is sweet - like but good. Identical - Good I'd say. 67 # Identical Very good flavor. ——_————_—————————————————_———_———_—— # was the different sample - Fresh Eggs ( ) and Z were identical samples — Product C 74 APPENDIX H UNSOLICITED COMMENTS FROM PANEL B (Trial 10) Evening Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 70 # Identical One tasted powdery. 71 # Different It tastes with cheese. I put cheese into my eggs. 74 # Different Better flavor. 79 # Identical Don't care for taste - not "eggy". 83 # Identical A distinct difference. 90 # Different Tastes like an egg. Just right. 96 # Identical What is the tangy taste of different sample? 99 # Different No salt. 100 # Different # Has better flavor. 107 # Identical Drier. 110 ( ) Prefer both. 116 # Different Seems to be tastier. 120 # Identical Different sample has different texture. Almost too mush and airy. 123 # Different One tastes a little bit light and airy. 75 Panel Sample Member Picked as Number Different Preference Comments 127 # Identical Too much milk. Takes away the egg taste. 129 # Different The identical ones are dryer and not salty which to my opinion accounts for the dif- ference. 131 # Identical Very obvious. 133 # Different The different sample seems to have a sweeter flavor. 135 # Identical The different one was too watery and bland. 136 # Identical I like both tho. 138 # Identical The different one seemed powder like in texture. 141 Z Identical Not much difference in the taste of any samples. ————_———l-—_—-h-n-——I.—I-_a—‘-l-t_t——e-O_————t—_---—_ # was the different sample - Product C ( ) and Z were identical samples - Fresh Eggs muiiiijiiiijiiiiii":m