Journal of the Korean Society of International Agriculture (한국국제농업개발학회지)

The Korean Society of International Agriculture (한국국제농업개발학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Varietal Preference of Grain Appearance and Sensory of African on Rice Ecotypes

벼 생태형별 아프리카인의 쌀 외관품질 및 밥맛 선호도 평가

  • 이점식 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 이정희 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 윤미라 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 곽지은 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 천아름 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 강경호 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 정지웅 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 전재범 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 김보경 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원)
  • Received : 2014.06.05
  • Accepted : 2014.09.16
  • Published : 2014.09.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate grain appearance and cooked rice taste preferred by Africans for the rice ecotype of one Japonica variety, one Indica variety, and two varieties of Tongil type as compared with Korean's preference. The preferred grain appearance by Africans who have participated as panelists was in the order of grain length, aroma, and shape, while Korean preferred rice quality in the order of appearance(head rice) and grain length. Africans preferred imported Indica rice from Thailand the most, while Korean preferred Japonica Haimi the most. Overall, African preferred aromatic rice with long grain, while Korean preferred short grain rice with high head rice ratio. In the evaluation of cooked rice taste, there was no significant statistical difference between varieties preferred by Africans. Whereas, Koreans showed clear preference in the order of Haiami > Dasan 1 = Hanareum > Indica rice. The preference analysis results of cooked rice taste subjected to Japonica and Indica which showed clear preference by Koreans revealed that Africans from Cameroon, DR Congo, and Tanzania preferred Haimai. Meanwhile, the Africans from Uganda, Mali, and Nigeria preferred imported Indica rice from Thailand. The Africans from Kenya, Malawi, Ghana, and Sudan showed similar preference among Japonica and Indica varieties. The study results indicated that Africans had different preference of cooked rice taste for eco-type rice varieties by different nations. It is regarded that additional research would be conducted to evaluate cooked rice taste by the appropriate numbers of panelists from various field and by the various rice varieties including rice variety preferred by different African countries.

본 연구의 목적은 벼 생태형별 자포니카 1품종, 인디카 1품종 및 통일형 2품종에 대하여 아프리카인들이 선호하는 쌀의 외관품질과 밥맛을 평가하기 위하여 한국인의 선호도와 비교하여 수행되었다. 1. 쌀 외관품질 항목 중에서 패널로 참여한 아프리카인이 선호하는 쌀의 외관품질은 쌀의 길이 > 향 > 모양 순이었으며, 반면 한국인은 쌀의 외관 > 쌀의 길이 순이었다. 품종별 선호도에서 아프리카인은 인디카 태국 수입쌀을, 한국인은 자포니카 하이아미를 가장 선호하였다. 따라서 아프리카인은 장립이면서 향이 나는 쌀, 한국인은 단원립이면서 완전미율이 높은 쌀을 선호하였다. 2. 아프리카인 패널을 대상으로한 밥맛 선호도 평가결과 품종간 통계적인 차이는 없었으며, 반면 한국인은 하이아미 > 다산1호 = 한아름 > 인디카 쌀의 순으로 뚜렷한 선호도를 나타냈다. 한국인대상의 선호도에서 차이가 뚜렷했던 자포니카와 인디카를 대상으로 분석한 결과, 자포니카인 하이아미를 선호한 패널은 카메론, DR 콩고, 탄자니아인 이였으며, 반면 우간다, 말리 및 나이지리아인 패널은 인디카인 태국 수입쌀을 선호하는 것으로 평가되었다. 그 외 케냐, 말라위, 가나, 수단인 패널은 자포니카와 인디카 품종간에 유사한 선호도를 보였다. 3. 향후, 아프리카 국가별 밥맛 선호도 차이 여부에 대하여 다양한 분야의 적정 수의 패널과 현재 아프리카 국가별 소비자가 선호하는 쌀 품종을 포함하여 다양한 품종에 대한 추가적인 연구가 이루어져야 할 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 농촌진흥청

References

  1. Choi H. C. 2002. Current status and perspectives in varietal improvement of rice cultivars for high-quality and value-added products. Korean J. Crop Sci. 47(S) : 15-32.
  2. FAOSTAT(Statistics division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014. http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx). 2014.
  3. Heo S. W. 2012. Project evaluation of Korea-Africa Food & Agriculture Cooperation Initiative(KAFACI) focused on relevance and efficiency. Korean J. Intl. Agri. 24(5): 511-517. https://doi.org/10.12719/KSIA.2012.24.5.511
  4. Jellinek G. 1985. Sensory Evaluation of Food-Theory and Practice, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK.
  5. Juliano B. O. 1985. Rice : Chemistry and Technology. AACC second edition. 1-757.
  6. Juliano B. O. 1990. Rice grain quality : Problems and Challenges. Cereal Food Word : 245-253.
  7. Hoshikawa K. 1989. The growing rice plant : An anatomical monograph Noubunkyo Tokyo : 255-292.
  8. Kim K. O. and Lee Y. C. 2003. Sensory evaluation of food. 2003. Hakyoun.
  9. Ong M. H. and Blanshard J. M. V. 1995. Texture determinants in cooked, parboiled rice. : Rice starch amylose and the fine stucture of amylopentin. Journal Cereal Science 21 : 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.1995.0028
  10. Rural Development Administration. 2012. Standard for research, survey and analysis of agricultural science technology. Suwon, Korea.
  11. Rural Development Administration, National Institute of Crop Science. 2003. Evaluate the quality and taste of rice. Suwon, Korea.
  12. Rural Development Administration & Northern Agriculture Research Institute, INC. 2002. The green revolution in Korea: development and dissemination of Tongil-type rice variety.
  13. Tomlins, K. I. 2000. Methods for the Sensory Evaluation of Food and Drink Products. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham Maritime, Kent UK.
  14. Tomlins K. I., Manful J. T., Larwer P., Hammond L. 2005. Urban consumer preferences and sensory evaluation of locally produced and imported rice in West Africa. Food Quality and Preference 16 : 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.02.002
  15. Unnevehr L. J. 1986. Consumer Demand for Rice Grain Quality and Returns to Research for Quality Improvement in Southeast Asia. American Agricultural Economics Association 68(3) : 634-641. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241547
  16. West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA). 2008. 2007. Africa rice trends.