This is the published version of a paper published in The International Journal of Food
Design.
Citation for the original published paper (version of record):
Westling, M., Wennström, S., Öström, Å. (2021)
A recipe development process model designed to support a crop’s sensory qualities
The International Journal of Food Design, 6(1)
https://doi.org/10.1386/ijfd_00022_1
Access to the published version may require subscription.
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
Permanent link to this version:
international journal of food design Volume 6 Number 1
© 2021 the Author(s). Published by Intellect Ltd Article. English language. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijfd_00022_1
Received 22 October 2019; Accepted 12 September 2020
MAGNUS WESTLING
Örebro University
STEFAN WENNSTRÖM
Örebro University
ÅSA ÖSTRÖM
Örebro University
A recipe development
process model designed to
support a crop’s sensory
qualities
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to apply a recipe development process designed to unfold how to start from a crop – especially less known landraces and varieties – and maximize its culinary utility. How can such a recipe development process be modelled? What more than the recipe itself can be obtained from the recipe devel-opment process? In this study, the objective is to create a basic recipe for grey peas that supports the crop’s sensory qualities, and test it in different food products. Using the recipe development process model, our results suggest that minced grey peas, which have authentic nutty flavours, pronounced chewing resistance and a combination of soft and hard textures, can be used to create appealing plant-based patties. When minced grey peas are fried in oil, greater taste intensity, spiciness,
KEYWORDS
grey peas plant-based novel food product development agricultural biodiversity culinary funnelumami and complexity are achieved. Additional applications of minced grey peas were also identified, suggesting that the recipe development process can yield information on how to develop another food product with the same basic recipe. The recipe development process we suggest – the culinary funnel – can thus be used to explore the culinary possibilities of lesser known landraces and varieties. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and repro-duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The CC BY licence permits commercial and non-commerical reuse.
INTRODUCTION
The taste for biodiversity
The increasing homogeneity of staple food crops globally poses a potential threat to food security (Khoury et al. 2014). The importance of maintaining the genetic diversity of seeds and cultivated plants is expressed in sustainable development goal (SDG) 2.5, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2015). The loss of biological diversity is of cultural and spir-itual concern (Golliher 1999), relevant to SDG 11, target 11.4 on preserv-ing natural and cultural heritage. Sethi states, for example, that ‘when we all eat the same variety of apple or banana, we aren’t just losing genetic diver-sity; we’re losing part of what makes us who we are’ (2015: 34). But what do consumers think? Do they have a taste for ‘biodiversity’?
It is suggested that consumers following a typical western diet should reduce ‘total protein intake as well as the ratio of animal over plant protein’ as part of a protein transition, based on UN SDGs and planetary bounda-ries (Aikin and de Boer 2020). There is also a need to facilitate simplicity in cooking and to develop plant-based options in accordance with everyday meals, since it has been found that ‘the lack of familiarity and skill hampered the preparation of real vegetarian meals’ (Schösler et al. 2012) and that other components influence the liking of plant-based options (Elzerman et al. 2011). Various plant-based options to meat on the market today are made from water, processed protein sources (e.g. soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate, mycoprotein and wheat gluten), fat and/or oil, flavourings, binders and colouring agents (Kyriakopoulou et al. 2019). However, negative sensory attributes have been noted in plant-based options, such as uniform taste, compactness, dryness and softness (Elzerman et al. 2013). In addition, most of these plant-based options are made from relatively few globally sourced crops (van der Goot et al. 2016). The crops that plant-based options are made from are reduced from unrefined, whole foods to functional fractions by intensive fractionation/separation processes on an industrial scale, using a great deal of energy and water, while producing large amounts of waste (van der Goot et al. 2016). This stands in opposition to the growing awareness of consumers regarding qualities of food such as traceability and authenticity (Spielmann and Charters 2013), and to consumers’ demand for pure, authentic protein sources (de Boer and Schösler 2013).
Product development not driven by the market, intuitive ideas or
concepts
Many industrial food companies focus on brand development or line exten-sions (Ambler and Styles 1996) by adding new flavours and new packaging to existing, fast-moving consumer goods (Nijssen 1999). In contrast, using the sensory qualities of a crop and stretching its culinary possibilities are not goals to strive towards at the industrial scale on a globalized market (Trienekens and Zuurbier 2007), but are rather goals for a home kitchen (Lavelle et al. 2016) or restaurant (Dallinger and Magnini 2017). According to interviews by VanWinkle (2017), the direction within product development that emphasizes the crop itself and its sensory qualities – similar to the practice of cooking from scratch – is a matter of knowledge and technique. It differs from brand development or functional food product development (Siró et al. 2008) in that it does not start with thought-driven processes such as idea generation and concept development in relation to the perceived needs of consumers and the market (Fuller 2011). Instead, it should be recognized as a material-driven design (Karana et al. 2015), a ‘design with food’ rather than a ‘food product design’, as explained by Zampollo (2013). For example, when planning to bake bread, a baker might seek a flour with a certain quality that is theoretically ideal for baking that particular type of bread. Thus, the baker can use only a limited variation of wheat or other grain. In contrast, if a baker starts with a flour with different qualities than a typical wheat flour, the baker must change how the bread is made, depending on that particular flour, in order to make bread that tastes good. The latter example represents product development that aims to manage – and accentuate – a crop’s sensory qualities.
A number of scientific studies within the culinary field have initiated prod-uct development processes based on intuitive ideas (e.g. Stierand et al. 2014; Albors-Garrigós et al. 2018) or formulated concepts (e.g. Naes and Nyvold 2004; Ottenbacher and Harrington 2007), rather than starting out from the sensory qualities of a crop with the goal of enhancing these qualities. Instead of conducting traditional food product development processes, Yersüren and Zencir (2019) and Aryeetey et al. (2019) conducted ‘recipe development stud-ies’ that focused on increasing the demand for a particular edible species by developing recipes that support its sensory qualities. Yersüren and Zencir (2019) determined a pre-standard recipe for rowanberry liqueur, including recommendations for further improvement and commercial potential. In that particular study, it was important for the sensory qualities of rowanberry to be evident in the developed product (a liqueur). Aryeetey et al. (2019), on the other hand, determined standardized recipes for tea and sugar breads. Their study involved collecting information on existing recipes for specific amounts of the ingredients used and developing an experimental design with bread type and level of cassava flour as factors. The products were evaluated on bread volume, bread crumb and crust colour, texture, consumer preference and sensory attributes (Aryeetey et al. 2019).
The aim of the present study is to apply a recipe development process, similar to Yersüren and Zencir (2019) and Aryeetey et al. (2019), which is designed to unfold how to start from a crop – especially lesser known landraces and varieties – and maximize its culinary utility. How can such a recipe development process be modelled? What more than the recipe itself can we expect to get from the recipe development process? In this particular recipe development study, the objective is to create a basic recipe using grey
peas that supports the crop’s sensory qualities, and test the recipe in different food products. The recipe is intended to be utilized with simplicity in familiar, everyday meals, to facilitate a protein transition in the typical western diet, and to promote a sustainable diversification of our staple foods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
With the two recipe development studies by Yersüren and Zencir (2019) and Aryeetey et al. (2019) as a combined methodological framework, our recipe development process aims to keep the sensory qualities of the selected crop and variety evident, both in the plant-based option and when the plant-based option is part of a complex food product. The process, summarized in Figure 1, includes four steps that constitute a design with food in which approaches and methods from food science and culinary arts are combined in order to maximize the culinary utility of a particular crop. Inspired by Aryeetey et al. (2019), the recipe selection and optimization steps establish the different process parameters (production processes, ingredients, proportions, etc.) by (I) experimental design and (II) testing, adapting and retrying the process several times. The cooking elaborations and consumer evaluation step are inspired by Yersüren and Zencir (2019), and provides an evaluation of the different exper-iments, as well as recommendations for further improvements. The goal in each of the four steps is to test and refine the crop’s sensory qualities and culinary utility.
Crop and variety selection
Grey peas were selected as a model crop for this study because of their unique sensory profile, which shows appropriate sensory qualities for a plant-based option (Westling et al. 2019). Furthermore, although the grey pea is a crop with a long-withstanding tradition of cultivation throughout Northern Europe (Leino et al. 2013; Hagenblad et al. 2014), it can hardly be found on store shelves today, indicating a discontinuity of grey peas as a staple food. Grey peas were gathered from small-scale farms in the mid-eastern parts of Sweden. The grey pea variety ‘Retrija’ was used because of its high flavour intensity with nutty and sweet attributes, and the relatively high content of tannins, which provides a spicy and meaty flavour when the peas are fried in butter (Westling et al. 2019).
Recipe selection
In food science, factorial design has been used to prototype food products because it is possible to experiment with several process parameters simul-taneously, providing an understanding on which factors – independently and together – that will have an effect on selected attributes (Bower 2013). Based on this quantitative design, existing recipes for plant-based options for minced meat, such as vegetarian patties, were collected and analysed as inspiration and to identify important factors. Two different recipes for vegetarian patties made from black beans and yellow peas, respectively, were chosen to build on in order to develop eight different recipes in total, based on three different factors. These factors were: choice of binder; adding monosodium glutamate (MSG) – the taste of umami – or not; and using only mashed grey peas or a mix of mashed grey peas and whole (unmashed) roasted grey peas (Table 1).
One vegetarian patty recipe (E–H in Table 1) originally uses black beans, 5.5% ‘meat glue’ (transglutaminase of microbial origin, sodium caseinate and maltodextrin) and 12.5% olive oil as the binder, and includes 0.1% MSG. In this recipe, half of the boiled beans were mashed with a blender, and the other half were roasted in a convection oven. The other vegetarian patty recipe (A–D in Table 1) originally uses yellow peas, 7% maize starch and 6% olive oil as a binder, and does not include MSG. When using this recipe, all yellow peas were mashed with a blender. These two recipes exemplify two different ways of making a vegetarian patty: the first is modernist and the second is traditional.
The recipes were adjusted so that all the original differences – except for the three factors (binder, umami and texture) – would be the same: time and temperature of soaking (24 hours, 19–22°C), simmering with a lid (one hour, 92–96°C), mashing the boiled grey peas with a blender or roasting them in a convection oven (30 minutes at 175°C), resting before shaping (24 hours, 4–8°C) and frying before serving (frying pan on medium–high heat with rape-seed oil two to three minutes on each side). All recipes are in metric weights, measuring ingredients to the tenth of a gram (Table 1).
Taste Texture Non-sensory information
Taste intensity Surface texture Complexity
Spiciness Chewing resistance
Umami Firmness
Just-about right combination of soft and hard textures
Table 2: Sensory attributes and non-sensory information used in the sensory profiling evaluation.
A B C D E F G H
Boiled grey peas 100 g 100 g 100 g 100 g 100 g 100 g 100 g 100 g Binder Maize starch 7 g 7 g 7 g 7 g – – – – Meat glue – – – – 5.5 g 5.5 g 5.5 g 5.5 g Olive oil 6 g 6 g 6 g 6 g 12.5 g 12.5 g 12.5 g 12.5 g Umami MSG – – 0.1 g 0.1 g – – 0.1 g 0.1 g Texture 0 = mashed peas 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 = a mix of mashed and whole peas
Table 1: Three factors providing eight different recipes (A–H) in a factorial design.
by Logic8 B.V., The Netherlands, accessed 3 March 2021) using a Pearson (correlation) principal component analysis and cluster analysis, showing graphically on a sensory map (biplot) the products positioning and groupings with the attributes as arrows representing increased intensity. Based on the sensory evaluation, one recipe was developed further by cooking elaborations.
The eight different recipes generated by the factorial design were subjected to sensory profiling evaluation (Lawless and Heymann 2010). The sensory evaluation was conducted with nine undergraduate students at the School of Hospitality, Culinary Arts and Meal Sciences, Örebro University, who volun-tarily participated in the study and provided informed consent. The students were trained in two sessions of approximately one hour each to define the sensory attributes used, with two reference samples for each sensory attribute representing different intensity levels. The sensory attributes and non-sensory information ‘complexity’, evaluated with unstructured line scales ranging from 1 to 9 (1 = none, 9 = extremely high), are presented in Table 2. The ‘just-about-right’ combination of soft and hard textures was evaluated with a three-point ‘just-about-right’ scale (−1 = too soft, 0 = ‘just-about-right’ combination of soft and hard textures, +1 = too hard; López Osornio and Hough 2010). Grey pea patties were fried and served at room temperature (19–22°C) on white paper plates in randomized order, numbered with a three-digit code with replicates, resulting in sixteen samples for each assessor to evaluate. The analysis was performed by EyeOpenR version 4.1.11 (https://eyequestion.nl
Recipe optimization
To secure the important dimension of culinary arts in the recipe develop-ment process, an error-driven cooking elaboration was carried out by the first author, a trained professional cook, in an equipped research kitchen at a culi-nary school, in order to explore the variability within the recipe constraints (manipulating cooking temperature, cooking time and the proportions of the ingredients), based on the outcomes of the sensory evaluation performed. All ingredients in the recipe were adjusted according to their sensory qualities and functional properties. About twenty different boiling times were tested: 30 seconds, three minutes, ten minutes, twenty minutes, 30 minutes, and so forth, up to six hours. Six different temperatures were tested: 90°C, 92°C, 94°C, 96°C, 98°C and 100°C. The grey peas were mashed using different pieces of common kitchen equipment, including an immersion blender, a food mixer, a potato masher and a meat grinder with different grinder sizes. Unlike previ-ous prototypes, these ones were not fried before serving in order to keep the subtle flavour differences due to the variability within the recipe constraints. Based on this cooking elaboration, a choice was made in terms of how the recipe would be executed.
Cooking elaborations and consumer evaluations
Inspired by culinary design processes (e.g. Harrington 2004; Kudrowitz et al. 2014), an iterative investigation involving cooking elaborations and consumer evaluations was carried out to evaluate the situational appropriateness of the crop’s sensory qualities. The question in focus was: how can the sensory quali-ties of the grey pea variety and landrace be kept evident, both in the minced grey peas and as part of a complex food product? Which complex food product would be tested empirically? This fourth and last step of our recipe develop-ment process, visualized in Figure 2, is exemplified by experidevelop-ments I–IV below.
Figure 2: The iterative development process, visualized as an onion diagram, included cooking elaborations and consumer evaluations, where the experiments in each ring depended on the experiments in the larger rings.
The cooking elaborations were carried out by the first author similar to the recipe optimization. In addition, a selection of different herbs, sprouts, vegetables, onions, cereals, seeds, mushrooms, dairy products, oils, vinegars and condiments were available during the elaborations to combine with the minced grey peas. Components that did not balance the flavours but rather masked the flavour of grey peas were excluded from the elaborations. The consumer evaluations consisted of questionnaires in paper form that were filled in individually by the consumers. The questionnaires included verbal hedonic values (with seven categories, ranging from ‘dislike very much’ to ‘like very much’) and open-ended reasons for liking and disliking. Data interpreta-tion involved averaging hedonic values and summarizing the qualitative data by frequency distribution tables, in order to provide an understanding of likes and dislikes, as well as the reasons for liking and disliking. The consumers were informed both verbally and in writing that participation was voluntarily and anonymous, and that no personal or sensitive data would be processed. To avoid infringement on individuals’ personal privacy, no demographic vari-ables were included in the questionnaires, only age verification. The consum-ers were also informed that (1) the grey pea is a pea that used to be commonly eaten, dating back to medieval times; (2) there are different kind of grey peas and (3) the variety they would eat, ‘Retrija’, has an intense taste and flavours similar to those of hazelnut.
Experiments I–III
The minced grey peas were used to develop a grey pea burger in the first experiment. A small-scale in-house product screening (N = 20) was conducted among university staff at a culinary school to develop the recipe in a cost-effective way, prior to the larger consumer test in experiment II. The grey pea burger was served in a seminar room as a lunch on white plates with knife and fork, along with beer and potato salad. The aim of the second experiment was to further improve the grey pea burger, based on the results from the consumer evaluation in experiment I. A consumer test (N = 124) was carried out in a primary and upper secondary school with students aged 10–18 years in order to evaluate experiment II and further develop the recipe in experi-ment III. The students and their parents and teachers were informed of the study in advance, which included a statement that participation was voluntar-ily and anonymous, and that no personal or sensitive data would be processed. The school’s principal approved the implementation of the study as part of the students’ school meal. The grey pea burger was served as a lunch in the school canteen on white plates with knife and fork along with water or milk and free choice from a salad bar. The aim of the third experiment was to find new cooking methods and/or ingredients to make the grey pea burger more palatable and interesting from a gastronomical perspective. Another trained professional cook, who holds the prestigious title ‘Swedish Chef of the Year’, was invited to participate. The invited cook was encouraged to try different ways to produce the grey pea burger, and to combine it with different ingre-dients. The invited cook was also encouraged to suggest preparation methods and ingredients that were not available during this elaboration, but that could further improve the recipe. A consumer test (N = 47) was carried out at a conference related to food and meals, in order to understand target consum-ers’ liking of the complex food product and to develop the recipe further in experiment IV. A grey pea wrap was served in a hallway as a lunch on brown paper plates with a paper napkin, along with apple juice.
Experiment IV
The aim of the fourth experiment was to further refine the minced grey pea patties, beyond the limitations of the recipe of choice. Different binders were tested, leftovers that had previously been discarded were incorporated to the recipe and nutritional yeast was evaluated in terms of its nutty, cheesy and creamy flavours (Vetriselvi et al. 2010; Kyriakopoulou et al. 2019). Nutritional yeast is an excellent source of protein and vitamins when meat is omitted, including vitamin B12 (cobalamin) (B12 deficiency being relatively common
among vegetarians). Also, a blend of two varieties of grey pea with distinctly different sensory profiles (‘Retrija’ and ‘Rättvik’) was elaborated in different proportions and then tested to evaluate whether it provided even greater complexity and higher liking than the grey pea variety ‘Retrija’ alone. The grey pea landrace ‘Rättvik’ was chosen because it had a relatively different sensory profile than ‘Retrija’, with an earthier and bitterer taste.
Since we were aiming to keep the subtle flavour differences due to the selected crop varieties (‘Retrija’ and ‘Rättvik’), the patties were not fried before serving, similar to the recipe optimization. Likewise, the patties were not served in a complex food product, in a meal context, similar to the recipe selection. Moreover, for the recipe to meet the requirement of easy handling and culinary flexibility, consumer preference should not depend on the execu-tion of a specific cooking technique (frying). A consumer test (N = 52), applied to validate the output of experiment IV, was carried out at another conference, at which various actors were discussing how it would be possible to increase the interest, market and uses of cereals and legumes. Two samples of cooked minced grey peas formed into bite-size balls were served at a seminar lunch in transparent plastic packaging. The serving was carried out in a fixed order, with the minced grey peas (100% ‘Retrija’) being served first, and the blend (75% ‘Retrija’ and 25% ‘Rättvik’) being served second. No information on what constituted the differences between the two samples was given.
In this fourth consumer test, the verbal hedonic values ranged from ‘super good’ to ‘super bad’, as developed by Kroll (1990), since there were consumers in the earlier experiments (I–III) who had difficulty understand-ing the highest and lowest levels of the hedonic values ‘like very much’ and ‘dislike very much’. The questionnaire included two additional questions at the end of the questionnaire with Yes/No/Don’t know answers: ‘would you like to see the minced grey peas as an alternative to meat?’, and ‘would you prefer the minced grey peas over similar products based on soybeans?’ The consumers were asked a ‘check-all-that-apply’ (CATA) question for the sensory characterization (Ares and Jaeger 2015; Meyners and Castura 2016) of the two samples of minced grey peas. The consumers were also asked to answer a CATA question to describe the sensory characteristics of an ideal plant-based option using minced grey peas. The sensory attrib-utes included in the CATA questions are presented in Table 3. The analy-sis was performed by EyeOpenR version 4.1.11 (https://eyequestion.nl by Logic8 B.V., The Netherlands, accessed 3 March 2021). The analysis included a two-way ANOVA (samples and assessors as factors) with Tukey HSD to evaluate whether the single varietal or the blend was preferred. Cochran’s Q test was used for non-parametric statistics of binary data to compare the two different samples in terms of sensory attributes and non-sensory informa-tion. Finally, a correspondence analysis was used to visualize the relationships between the two samples of minced grey peas (single varietal and blend), the ideal product, the sensory attributes and the non-sensory information.
RESULTS
Recipe selection
We tested the eight different recipes (A–H in Table 1) for sensory attributes, with the aim of finding which combination of process parameters provided the highest taste intensity, spiciness, umami and complexity, as well as the ‘just-about-right’ combination of soft and hard textures. Recipes B and D, with maize starch and a mix of whole and mashed peas, and Recipes E and G, with meat glue and mashed peas only, scored low on the attributes taste inten-sity, spiciness and umami and were hence excluded from the study. Recipes A and C scored significantly higher in taste intensity, spiciness and complexity than the other recipes (Table 4). This is visualized by the principal component analysis (Figure 3) in the first dimension, which explains 75.68 per cent of the variance. Recipes F and H scored significantly closer to the just-about-right combinations of soft and hard textures (Table 4), visualized by the principal component analysis (Figure 3) in the second dimension, which explains 13.83 per cent of the variance. Based on these results, Recipes A and C, using maize starch and mashed peas, were chosen to develop further prior to Recipes F and H, focusing on highlighting the particular flavours of cooked grey peas. Recipe A, without added MSG, was chosen prior to Recipe C, reducing the number of additives used.
Taste Texture Non-sensory information
Bitter Combination of soft and hard textures Complex taste Buttery Compact consistency
Earthy taste Juicy
Flavourful Mealy
Mild taste Pronounced chewing resistance
Nutty Soft Peppery Roasted notes Spicy Sweet Umami
Figure 3: Principal component analysis graph to visualize the relationships between the eight different recipes (A–H), the sensory attributes and the non-sensory information.
Recipes A–H in
four clusters Attribute Mean in categoryOverall mean categorySD in all SDOver-valueP
B & D Spiciness 1.55 3.70 0.11 1.57 0.04 Taste intensity 1.78 4.05 0.27 1.63 0.03 Chewing resistance 1.39 3.65 0.08 1.58 0.03 Umami 1.46 3.43 0.05 1.33 0.02 Firmness 1.62 5.45 0.18 2.42 0.02 Surface texture 1.45 4.99 0.03 2.14 0.01
E & G This cluster is not characterized by any attribute F & H Just-about-right combination of soft and
hard textures 0.17 −0.68 0.06 0.63 0.04
A & C Complexity 5.99 3.70 0.11 1.50 0.02
Spiciness 5.94 3.70 0.24 1.57 0.03
Taste intensity 6.36 4.05 0.10 1.63 0.03
Table 4: Recipes A–H in four clusters divided according to sensory attributes and the non-sensory information ‘complexity’. The line scales for the sensory attributes and the non-sensory information ‘complexity’ ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = none, 9 = extremely high) while the ‘just-about-right’ combination of soft and hard textures was evalu-ated with a three-point ‘just-about-right’ scale (−1 = too soft, 0 = ‘just-about-right’ combination of soft and hard textures, +1 = too hard).
Recipe optimization
Two of the ingredients were changed in order to prioritize domestic crops and enable a more distinct flavour of the grey peas: potato starch was used instead of maize starch, and rapeseed oil was used instead of olive oil. The recipe was finely adjusted to balance the amount of rapeseed oil and potato starch. Too much rapeseed oil or not enough potato starch made the product too soft. It was necessary to adjust the boiling time to 35 minutes at 98–100°C. A longer boiling time resulted in a decrease of chewing resistance and firmness, while a shorter boiling time did not contribute to the particular taste intensity, spici-ness, umami and complexity of cooked grey peas. It was found that a meat grinder with small holes resulted in acceptable sizes of the tannin-rich grey pea seed coat, making it neither too big (so it gets stuck in the mouth) nor too small (making the product lose taste intensity, spiciness, umami and complex-ity). This recipe optimization resulted in carefully selected cooking times, cook-ing temperatures, cookcook-ing techniques and ratio of the different cook-ingredients.
Cooking elaborations and consumer evaluations
Experiment I
The minced grey peas were used as a starting point to find matching ingre-dients that balanced the flavour of grey peas and, as far as possible, kept the flavour of grey peas evident. This was done by tasting different herbs, sprouts, vegetables, onions, cereals, seeds, mushrooms, dairy products, oils, vinegars and condiments while simultaneously eating the minced grey peas. Thereafter, a combination of promising ingredients was tasted together while simulta-neously eating the minced grey peas. The selection of ingredients was also made based on what is considered to be suitable for a fast food burger. This cooking elaboration resulted in a grey pea patty that was placed in a burger bun with fresh lettuce, pickled cucumber, red bell pepper, onion and spices (‘Bostongurka’), and sour cream flavoured with horseradish.
Most of the university staff attending the in-house product screening (N = 16, out of 20) stated that they ‘liked’ the grey pea burger overall, while one staff member ‘disliked’ the burger. The reason for the overall liking of the grey pea burger was the flavour – both overall, and in regard to certain components such as the pickled cucumber and the lettuce, which provided a refreshing taste that contrasted with the taste of the grey peas and their mealy texture. Negative comments referred to the dry texture of the minced grey peas and the bread combined. The sour cream was somewhat too strong, with too much added horseradish.
Experiment II
The results from the in-house product screening (experiment I) were used to improve the grey pea burger. A re-evaluation regarding the ingredients that should be used was made, trying to enhance the flavour of grey peas and thus downplay the importance of the grey pea burger being considered to be rather close to a regular burger in its flavour composition. This second cooking elab-oration resulted in a grey pea patty placed in a burger bun with fried kale and dinosaur kale, funnel chanterelle and sour cream flavoured with horseradish (Figure 4).
The majority of the students in the school (66 per cent) stated that they ‘liked’ the grey pea burger overall, while some students (10 per cent) ‘disliked’ the burger. The reason for the overall liking of the grey pea burger was the different components of the burger, with the sour cream and burger bun being most frequently referred to, as well as the grey pea burger overall. Students disliked aspects regarding the texture and consistency of the patty, which was soft, dry and falling apart, and regarding the fried kale/dinosaur kale, a component that some students did not recognize, of which they did not like the flavour, and that took too much time to chew.
Experiment III
The results from the consumer test in a primary and upper secondary school (experiment II) were used to look for alternatives to burger buns, test cooking methods that contribute to a more complex taste and to find additional ingre-dients that could make the complex food product more flavourful. The posi-tive comments in experiment I were used to possibly take back ingredients which contributed with a good taste. The invited chef was encouraged to use his previous experience of working with grey peas. This third cooking elabora-tion resulted in a new food product; grey pea patty served on soft flatbread – a grey pea wrap – with roasted grey peas, kale, dinosaur kale, parsley, pickled wild cucumber, hot chili sauce and sour cream flavoured with horseradish and raw onion (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Grey pea patty placed in a burger bun with fried kale and dinosaur kale, funnel chanterelle and sour cream flavoured with horseradish.
Every participant at the conference (100 per cent) stated that they ‘liked’ the grey pea wrap overall. The reasons for the overall liking of the grey pea wrap, based on the answers to the open-ended questions, were the texture and consistency of the wrap and the flavour combinations, because it was tasty and flavourful, partly due to its nutty flavour, and because of the fried minced grey peas. The participants commented that they disliked the texture and consistency of the grey pea wrap because it was a bit dry, and because of the mealy flavour of the grey pea patty and the soft flatbread combined. The grey pea wrap was somewhat difficult to eat, since the components were unevenly distributed in the wrap and because it fell apart easily.
Experiment IV
The challenge of the soft and mealy consistency was not solved in the previ-ous cooking elaborations. Further refining of the recipe for minced grey peas as a plant-based option – beyond the limitations of the recipe of choice – was necessary. The following three elements were incorporated into the recipe: (1) the use of methylcellulose in the recipe to provide a better firmness, result-ing in a firmer product without makresult-ing it too hard, because methylcellulose is soluble at low temperatures and gel at higher temperatures; (2) the use of flavourful stock obtained by reducing the boiling water that was previously Figure 5: Grey pea patty served on soft flatbread – a grey pea wrap – with roasted grey peas, kale, dinosaur kale, parsley, pickled wild cucumber, hot chili sauce and sour cream flavoured with horseradish and raw onion.
discarded, to provide an overall greater taste intensity and (3) the addition of B12 yeast flakes as nutritional enrichment and flavouring.
The participants generally stated that they would like to see the minced grey peas as an alternative to meat (79%). Likewise, most of the participants stated that they would prefer the minced grey peas over similar products based on soybeans (65%). The results from the consumer test suggest that either a single varietal or a blend can be used; both were evaluated overall as tast-ing ‘good’, accordtast-ing to mean and median values deviattast-ing between tasttast-ing ‘neither good nor bad’ and tasting ‘very good’. There were no significant differ-ences in liking between the varieties. The blend received the lowest tasting score and was assessed as tasting ‘bad’ by 3.7% of the consumers (N = 2). Four consumers (7.4%) gave the highest tasting score of ‘super good’: two consum-ers gave this score to the blend, and another two consumconsum-ers gave this score to the single varietal. The single varietal was evaluated as having buttery and nutty flavours, while the blend had a bitter, earthy and complex taste (Table 5). This is visualized by the correspondence analysis graph (Figure 6), in the second dimension, which explains 11.36% of the variance. The ‘ideal’ minced grey peas would be more juicy, flavourful, spicy and peppery, as well as having an umami taste and roasted notes (Table 5), visualized in the first dimension (Figure 6), which explains 88.64% of the variance.
Attribute Samples Ideal (C) Cochran’s Q test Single varietal (A) Blend (B) Q P value Buttery 38.46 B′ 15.38 48.08 B′ 18.32 <0.001 Peppery 0 3.85 15.38 A′ 11.56 0.003 Mild taste 67.31 C′ 63.46 C′ 28.85 26.96 <0.001 Bitter 0 9.62 0 10 0.007 Spicy 5.77 9.62 46.15 A′B′ 33.58 <0.001 Earthy taste 15.38 C 30.77 C′ 1.92 16.9 <0.001 Juicy 30.77 21.15 80.77 A′B′ 44.92 <0.001 Flavourful 25 23.08 71.15 A′B′ 31.63 <0.001 Nutty 69.23 B′ 44.23 55.77 9.77 0.008 Soft 55.77 C′ 44.23 C′ 11.54 29.45 <0.001
Roasted notes 15.38 11.54 44.23 A′B′ 18.5 <0.001
Sweet 23.08 C 19.23 7.69 7.43 0.024
Umami 13.46 13.46 51.92 A′B′ 34.78 <0.001
Mealy 59.62 C′ 63.46 C′ 3.85 50.17 <0.001
Complex taste 3.85 13.46 26.92 A′ 14.53 0.001
Compact consistency 9.62 9.62 11.54 0.2 0.905
Pronounced chewing resistance 34.62 32.69 38.46 0.61 0.738 Combination of soft and hard textures 53.85 59.62 48.08 2.35 0.309 Table 5: Consumers’ (N = 52) frequency of use of attributes (per cent) to describe minced grey peas (single varietal and blend), and statistically significant result after Cochran’s Q test, on the CATA questionnaire for an ideal prod-uct (comparison: A′ < 1 per cent; A < 5 per cent).
Additional attainable recipe applications
As a consequence of the iterative process with several experiments, additional applications of the minced grey peas, other than as plant-based patties, were discovered but not tested in this article. For example, to maximize the flavours produced by cooking grey peas in butter, the minced grey peas could be trans-formed into products such as pancakes and waffles, which require a higher moisture content as well as a search for other components that suit such food products and still balance the flavours of grey peas. Taking the importance of the soft flatbread and the burger bun into account for the overall liking, pastries with a light and crispy texture could be used instead, filled with minced grey peas, such as a filo-based pastry. Due to the similar tannin-rich flavours of grey peas and cocoa beans, another application of minced grey peas could be in plant-based brownies, replacing eggs and dairy in the brownie and still produce a soft and firm consistency. The high content of tannins in grey peas along with the particular sensory attributes of certain landraces and varieties could – with the use of different cooking methods and techniques – result in an interesting combination of a sweet and bitter taste with nutty and spicy flavours.
DISCUSSION
The output from our recipe development study is a basic recipe for minced grey peas and an understanding of its appropriateness for different applica-tions, which will allow further diversification and innovation paths. By discov-ering how a basic recipe – in our case, minced grey peas – can be developed into additional food products by tweaking a few process parameters encour-age experiments and an openness to error (Segnit 2018). This ‘lateral cooking’ approach, as Segnit (2018) define it, can help reducing food waste by reusing leftovers, building upon ‘the ends of the meals that came before them’ (Adler 2012).
Figure 6: Correspondence analysis graph to visualize the relationships between the two samples of minced grey peas (single varietal and blend), the ideal product, the sensory attributes and the non-sensory information.
The grey peas’ transformation into minced grey peas supported their abil-ity to be formed into different shapes, structures and textures, enabling distinct functions of the grey peas. Even though it could be further improved with more juicy, flavourful, spicy and peppery flavours, as well as more umami taste and roasted notes, consumers with an interest in increasing the culinary uses of cereals and legumes stated that they would like to see minced grey peas as an alternative to meat and that they would prefer the minced grey peas over similar products using soybeans. In addition, the authentic flavour of the grey peas that we aimed to preserve could be lost if additional ingredients were added to provide more flavourful, spicy and peppery flavours.
When the minced grey peas are served as fried patties in a wrap with several other ingredients in separate layers – that is, not mixed with the minced grey peas – the authentic nutty flavour of the grey peas was still perceived – and liked – by the consumers. Our results suggest a highly acceptable sensory quality (Everitt 2009) of the grey pea wrap according to all consumers (100%): 40% liked the wrap overall (six on a seven-point scale) and 60% liked the wrap very much overall (seven on a seven-point scale). Likewise, the grey pea burger achieved a highly acceptable sensory quality (Everitt 2009) according to a majority of the school students (52%); 33% liked the burger overall (six on a seven-point scale) and 19% liked the burger very much overall (seven on a seven-point scale). This was dependent on the first authors’ culinary competency (Hu 2010) and on the well-qualified professional chef that further improved the recipe in a fast and iterative way (Evans 2012) in experiment III. We found this collaboration to be fruitful – in particular, because we received input in terms of cultural enrichment and procedural knowledge, which is in line with data from Fooladi et al. (2019). According to our results in these two experiments (II and III), it was not the crop itself – that is, the grey peas – that contributed to the reasons for disliking the product, but rather the food combinations and the use of different cooking methods and techniques.
Perceived familiarity and situational appropriateness have an effect on consumers’ liking ratings of food products (Pliner and Stallberg-White 2000; Giacalone et al. 2015). We used situational appropriateness as a framework in our recipe development study in terms of how the complex food products were designed, prioritizing familiarity and an adaptation to the given meal contexts. The potential of this framework is that the composition of complex food products does not need to be sophisticated or built on optimal taste combinations in order to be accepted and enjoyed on a sensory level (Scander et al. 2018). Therefore, if we examine the combination of ingredients in terms of elements of situational appropriateness, there should be an opportunity to introduce novel ingredients and highlight their particular sensory attributes. This could be done by developing a basic recipe with a pronounced flavour of the crop being used, packaged in a meal context that consists of a set of familiar flavour affinities – a familiar flavour chord (Page 2017) – based on appropriate food items according to the consumers, similar to the output of experiment III (fried grey peas + raw onion + sour cream + pickled cucumber), which stems from the preceding steps and experiments.
A recipe development process model suggestion
During the selection of the grey pea varieties used in this recipe development study, it was implicit that they have a relatively high content of tannins, which provide a spicy and meaty flavour when fried in butter (Westling et al. 2019).
This made it possible to go beyond the grey peas’ explicitly nutty, sweet, earthy and bitter sensory attributes (Westling et al. 2019), approaching ‘the material-ity of the product through an active, learned practice of sensory perception’ (Lahne and Trubek 2014). Another important element of our study was the cyclic investigation of the food products’ forthcoming and continual improve-ment. This process is similar to the ‘hill climbing procedure’ that Norman and Verganti (2014) apply to their human-centred design by incremental innova-tions – partly because of the iterative nature of the process, but also in terms of expanding the design space without knowing the maximum extent of the current design space. In our case, a basic recipe with a pronounced flavour of the crop the recipe is based on could be one such design space. Arguably, the appropriate applications of mature, dry grey peas and other similar pulses could be viewed as a prominent peak to climb, due to the high variability of the physical characteristics of the pulse itself and the complex series of chemi-cal changes that occur – and do not occur – when cooking pulses (Wood 2017). The overall design of the recipe development process, which we name the culinary funnel, is illustrated in Figure 7. It consists of a flow with four steps (identical to Figure 1) that test and refine the crop’s sensory qualities and culi-nary utility by creating a recipe and apply it in different food products. This process flow differs from traditional product development because it is not driven by the market, intuitive ideas or concepts. Instead, the process is based on the crop’s sensory qualities, which are then managed by testing different production processes, ingredients and food products (Figure 7). By perform-ing the recipe development process over and over again, one food product can
Figure 7: The culinary funnel: a recipe development process model to study the culinary possibilities of a selected crop by creating a basic recipe and apply it in different food products. Movement forward in the recipe development process is facilitated by achieving too strong (+) and too weak (–) intensities of certain sensory qualities in order to understand the variables that constitute the different end results. In turn, incorrectly executed food combinations and/or combination of processes are progressively decreased. By performing this process repeatedly, one food product can give information on how to improve another product with the same basic recipe but different applications. Altogether, the culinary funnel aims to keep the crop’s specific sensory qualities evident throughout the process and thereupon refine its culinary utility.
give valuable information on how to improve another product with the same basic recipe but different applications (Segnit 2018), allowing for adaptation to specific needs and circumstances. This experimental and exploratory hands-on design (Figure 7) contributes to the field with knowledge and experience of a crop’s properties and consumer preferences, both of which are necessary for understanding gastronomic concepts (Klosse 2016), and provides insight into the culinary possibilities and limitations of certain crops and varieties.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to develop ways to work with food crops that are sustain-ably produced. In this recipe development study, we have suggested a process model – the culinary funnel – to study the culinary possibilities of a selected crop, with a focus on lesser known landraces and varieties. The culinary funnel includes four steps that are repeated in order to develop an understanding of the crop’s properties and consumer preferences, creating a base for under-standing gastronomic concepts and the culinary possibilities and limitations of certain crops and varieties. The output from the culinary funnel is a basic recipe with a pronounced flavour of the crop the recipe is based on, and an understanding of the recipe’s appropriateness for different applications. The particular flavours of certain varieties and landraces need to be managed and accentuated, which requires a certain degree of culinary competency in order to truly maximize the culinary utility of the diversity within crops. We hope to see additional recipe development studies using the culinary funnel to explore the culinary possibilities of lesser known crops, varieties and landraces, and, eventually, to promote a sustainable diversification of our staple foods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by VINNOVA (the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) in the call for climate-friendly proteins.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors designed the study. M. Westling performed the cooking elab-orations and the consumer evaluations, including collecting test data. S. Wennström and Å. Öström contributed with the performing of the data collection. M. Westling analysed test data. All authors interpreted the results. M. Westling drafted the manuscript, and S. Wennström and Å. Öström contributed with manuscript writing. S. Wennström and Å. Öström revised the work critically. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adler, T. (2012), An Everlasting Meal: Cooking with Economy and Grace, New York: Scribner.
Aikin, H. and de Boer, J. (2020), ‘The next protein transition’, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 105:1, pp. 515–22.
Albors-Garrigós, J., Monzo, J. M. and Garcia-Segovia, P. (2018), ‘Knowledge dynamics as drivers of innovation in Haute Cuisine and culinary services’, Industry and Innovation, 25:1, pp. 84–111.
Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1996), ‘Brand development versus new product development: Towards a process model of extension decisions’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14:7, pp. 10–19.
Ares, G. and Jaeger, S. R. (2015), ‘Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with consumers in practice: Experimental considerations and impact on outcome’, in J. Delarue, J. B. Lawlor and M. Rogeaux (eds), Rapid Sensory Profiling Techniques: Applications in New Product Development and Consumer Research, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 227–45.
Aryeetey, E., Wireko-Manu, F. D., Asante, J. O., Laryea, D., Ellis, W. O., Oduro, I. and Ngadi, M. (2019), ‘Recipe standardization of bread using cassava-wheat composite flour’, Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 17:3, pp. 232–55.
de Boer, J. and Schösler, H. (2013), ‘Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat’, Food Quality and Preference, 28:1, pp. 32–35.
Bower, J. A. (2013), ‘Food product formulation’, in J. A. Bower (ed.), Statistical Methods for Food Science, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 246–53. Dallinger, I. and Magnini, V. P. (2017), ‘Chefs’ perceptions of using convenience
food products versus scratch cooking’, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 20:1, pp. 34–49.
Elzerman, J. E., van Boekel, M. A. J. S. and Luning, P. A. (2013), ‘Exploring meat substitutes: Consumer experiences and contextual factors’, British Food Journal, 115:5, pp. 700–10.
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S. and Luning, P. A. (2011), ‘Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context’, Food Quality and Preference, 22:3, pp. 233–40.
Evans, J. (2012), ‘Non-trivial pursuit – New approaches to Nordic delicious-ness’, Anthropology of Food, p. S7, http://aof.revues.org/7262. Accessed 3 March 2021.
Everitt, M. (2009), ‘Consumer-targeted sensory quality’, in G. Barbosa-Cánovas, A. Mortimer, D. Lineback, W. Spiess, K. Buckle and P. Colonna (eds), Global Issues in Food Science and Technology, London: Academic Press, pp. 117–28.
Fooladi, E., Hopia, A., Lasa, D. and Arboleya, J. C. (2019), ‘Chefs and resear-chers: Culinary practitioners’ views on interaction between gastronomy and sciences’, International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 15:1, pp. 6–14.
Fuller, G. W. (2011), New Food Product Development; from Concept to Marketplace, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Giacalone, D., Bom Frost, M., Bredie, W. L. P., Pineau, B., Hunter, D. C., Paisley, A. G., Beresford, M. K. and Jaeger, S. R. (2015), ‘Situational appropriateness of beer is influenced by product familiarity’, Food Quality and Preference, 39:1, pp. 16–27.
Golliher, J. (1999), ‘Ethical, moral and religious concerns’, in D. A. Posey (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, London: Intermediate Technology Publications and United Nations Environment Programme, pp. 444–46.
van der Goot, A. J., Pelgrom, P. J. M., Berghout, J. A. M., Geerts, M. E. J., Jankowiak, L., Hardt, N. A., Keijer, J., Schutyser, M. A. I., Nikiforidis, C. V.
and Boom, R. M. (2016), ‘Concepts for further sustainable production of foods’, Journal of Food Engineering, 168, pp. 42–51.
Hagenblad, J., Boström, E., Nygårds, L. and Leino, M. W. (2014), ‘Genetic diversity in local cultivars of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) conserved “on farm” and in historical collections’, Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 61:2, pp. 413–22.
Harrington, R. J. (2004), ‘The culinary innovation process – A barrier to imita-tion’, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 7:3, pp. 35–57.
Hu, M. L. (2010), ‘Discovering culinary competency: An innovative approach’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9:1, pp. 65–72. Karana, E., Barati, B., Rognoli, V. and Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (2015), ‘Material
driven design (MDD): A method to design for material experiences’, International Journal of Design, 9:2, pp. 35–54.
Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. H. and Struik, P. C. (2014), ‘Increasing homo-geneity in global food supplies and the implications for food secu-rity’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111:11, pp. 4001–06.
Klosse, P. (2016), ‘Gastronomy: The extra dimension of hospitality’, paper presented at the EuroCHRIE conference, 25–29 October, Hungary: Budapest Metropolitan University.
Kroll, B. J. (1990), ‘Evaluating rating scales for sensory testing with children’, Food Technology, 44:11, pp. 78–86.
Kudrowitz, B., Oxborough, A., Choi, J. and Stover, E. (2014), ‘The chef as designer: Classifying the techniques that chefs use in creating innovative dishes’, in Proceedings of the 2014 Design Research Society Conference, 16– 19 June, Umeå, Sweden: Design Research Society and Umeå Institute of Design, pp. 127–46.
Kyriakopoulou, K., Dekkers, B. and van der Goot, A. J. (2019), ‘Plant-based meat analogues’, in C. M. Galanakis (ed.), Sustainable Meat Production and Processing, London: Academic Press, pp. 103–26.
Lahne, J. and Trubek, A. B. (2014), ‘“A little information excites us”: Consumer sensory experience of Vermont artisan cheese as active practice’, Appetite, 78:1, pp. 129–38.
Lavelle, F., McGowan, L., Spence, M., Caraher, M., Raats, M. M., Hollywood, L., McDowell, D., McCloat, A., Mooney, E. and Dean, M. (2016), ‘Barriers and facilitators to cooking from “scratch” using basic or raw ingredients: A qualitative interview study’, Appetite, 107:1, pp. 383–91.
Lawless, H. T. and Heymann, H. (2010), Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, New York: Springer.
Leino, M. W., Boström, E. and Hagenblad, J. (2013), ‘Twentieth-century chan-ges in the genetic composition of Swedish field pea metapopulations’, Heredity, 110:1, pp. 338–46.
López Osornio, M. M. and Hough, G. (2010), ‘Comparing 3-point versus 9-point just-about-right scales for determining the optimum concentra-tion of sweetness in a beverage’, Journal of Sensory Studies, 25:1, pp. 1–17. Meyners, M. and Castura, J. C. (2016), ‘Check-all-that-apply-questions’, in P.
Varela and G. Ares (eds), Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 271–306.
Naes, T. and Nyvold, T. E. (2004), ‘Creative design – An efficient tool for product development’, Food Quality and Preference, 15:2, pp. 97–104. Nijssen, E. J. (1999), ‘Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving
consu-mer goods’, European Journal of Marketing, 33:5&6, pp. 450–74.
Norman, D. A. and Verganti, R. (2014), ‘Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change’, Design Issues, 30:1, pp. 78–96.
Ottenbacher, M. and Harrington, R. J. (2007), ‘The culinary innovation process’, Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 5:4, pp. 9–35.
Page, K. (2017), Kitchen Creativity: Unlocking Culinary Genius-with Wisdom, Inspiration, and Ideas from the World's Most Creative Chefs, New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Pliner, P. and Stallberg-White, C. (2000), ‘“Pass the ketchup, please”: Familiar flavors increase children’s willingness to taste novel foods’, Appetite, 34:1, pp. 95–103.
Scander, H., Monteagudo, C., Nilsen, B., Tellström, R. and Yngve, A. (2018), ‘Food and beverage dinner combinations, patterns among Swedish adults’, International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 14:1, pp. 20–26. Schösler, H., de Boer, J. and Boersema, J. (2012), ‘Can we cut out the meat of
the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways toward meat substi-tution’, Appetite, 58:1, pp. 39–47.
Segnit, N. (2018), Lateral Cooking: One Dish Leads to Another, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sethi, S. (2015), Bread, Wine Chocolate: The Slow Loss of Foods We Love, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Siró, I., Kapolna, E., Kapolna, B. and Lugasi, A. (2008), ‘Functional food: Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance – A review’, Appetite, 51:3, pp. 456–67.
Spielmann, N. and Charters, S. (2013), ‘The dimensions of authenticity in terroir products’, International Journal of Wine Business Research, 25:4, pp. 310–24.
Stierand, M., Dörfler, V. and MacBryde, J. (2014), ‘Creativity and innovation in haute cuisine: Towards a systemic model’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 23:1, pp. 15–28.
Trienekens, J. and Zuurbier, P. (2007), ‘Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges’, International Journal of Production Economics, 113:1, pp. 107–22.
United Nations (2015), Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, New York: UN, https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed 3 March 2021.
VanWinkle, T. N. (2017), ‘“Savor the earth to save it!” – The pedagogy of sustai-nable pleasure and relational ecology in a place-based public culinary culture’, Food and Foodways, 25:1, pp. 40–57.
Vetriselvi, J., Saravanamuthu, R. and Dhivaharan, V. (2010), ‘Biotechnological potential and industrial applications of yeast’, in D. K. Maheshwari, R. C. Dubey and R. Saravanamuthu (eds), Industrial Exploitation of Microorganisms, New Delhi: I. K. International Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, p. 6.
Westling, M., Leino, M. W., Nilsen, A., Wennström, S. and Öström, Å. (2019), ‘Crop and livestock diversity cultivating gastronomic potential, illustrated by sensory profiles of landraces’, Journal of Food Science, 84:5, pp. 1162–69.
Wood, J. A. (2017), ‘Evaluation of cooking time in pulses: A review’, Cereal Chemistry, 94:1, pp. 32–48.
Yersüren, S. and Zencir, E. (2019), ‘Pre-standard recipe development study of rowanberry liqueur’, GSI Journals Serie B: Advancements in Business and Economics, 2:1, pp. 19–38.
Zampollo, F. (2013), ‘Food and design: Space, place and experience’, Hospitality & Society, 3:3, pp. 181–87.
SUGGESTED CITATION
Westling, Magnus, Wennström, Stefan and Öström, Åsa (2021), ‘A recipe development process model designed to support a crop’s sensory quali-ties’, International Journal of Food Design, 6:1, pp. 3–26, doi: https://doi. org/10.1386/ijfd_00022_1
CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS
Magnus Westling is a Ph.D. student in culinary arts and meal science. His field of research include sensory science and culinary arts. He is currently work-ing on the idea that sensory variation derived from a cultivated diversity is a fundamental quality in the culinary world due to the fact that it cultivates ‘gastronomic potential’.
Contact: Hospitality, Culinary Arts and Meal Science, Örebro University, Sörälgsvägen 1-2, 712 60 Grythyttan, Sweden.
E-mail: magnus.westling@oru.se https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9538-3937
Stefan Wennström is a senior lecturer in culinary arts and meal science. With a research background in molecular biology and biochemistry, later on supple-mented with education and training in gastronomy, Stefan’s interest lays in food science and gastronomy, particularly where natural sciences and culi-nary arts intersect. Current research focuses on sustainability and how practi-cal knowledge can be passed on from one person to another in the field of gastronomy.
Contact: Hospitality, Culinary Arts and Meal Science, Örebro University, Sörälgsvägen 1-2, 712 60 Grythyttan, Sweden.
E-mail: stefan.wennstrom@oru.se https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-1057
Åsa Öström is a professor in culinary arts and meal science. Åsa’s field of research include sensory research from an interdisciplinary perspective such as basic research in complex meal and multisensory settings. Current research focuses on developing methods in sensory science that assess food combina-tions and how sensory experiences can be communicated.
Contact: Hospitality, Culinary Arts and Meal Science, Örebro University, Sörälgsvägen 1-2, 712 60 Grythyttan, Sweden.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8848-5812
Magnus Westling, Stefan Wennström and Åsa Öström have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.
