4.2 Article

Consumer ratings of edible flower quality, mix, and color

Journal

HORTTECHNOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 644-647

Publisher

AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21273/HORTTECH.11.4.644

Keywords

survey; economics; visual; perception; damage; Viola xwittrockiana; Viola tricolor; Borago officinalis; Tropaeolum majus; Begonia xtuberhybrida; pansy; viola; nasturtium; borage; tuberous begonia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two identical surveys were conducted with separate samples to determine consumer perceptions of the quality of five edible flower species. Participants were either members of a class that reviewed the history and uses of edible flowers at an annual, 1-day event (Garden Days) or Michigan Master Gardeners who attended a similar class. Participants were shown a randomized series of projected photographic slides of five edible flower species and asked to indicate whether they found the flower quality acceptable. The slides depicted a range of ratings of mechanical damage, insect damage, or flower senescence on a Likert reference scale (I through 5) developed by the researchers. A flower rated 5 was flawless, while a flower rated I had substantial damage. Nearly one-half of all participants had eaten edible flowers before the study, and 57% to 59% had grown them for their own consumption, indicating many individuals had previous experience. Both samples rated flower quality equally and found pansy (Viola x wittrockiana 'Accord Banner Clear Mixture'), tuberous begonia (Begonia x tuberhybrida 'Ornament Pink'), and viola (Viola tricolor 'Helen Mount') acceptable from stage 5 to 3. Both groups found the nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus 'Jewel Mix') flowers acceptable at only rating 5. Garden Days participants rated borage (Borago officinalis) acceptable from ratings 5 to 3, while the Master Gardeners rated their acceptability from only 5 to 4. Participants also rated flower color (yellow, orange, and blue) as equally acceptable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available