Skip to main content

Table 6 Ward’s cluster analysis using taste and mouthfeel attributes to categorize varieties

From: Important Sensory Properties Differentiating Premium Rice Varieties

Variety

Country

Type

Cluster A–B (r2 = 0.75)

Cluster A1–A2 (r2 = 0.14)

Common characteristicsa

IRGA-417 (2008)

Brazil

Premium

A

A1

 

Guodao 6

China

2nd best

A

A1

 

BRS Jaçanã (2008)

Brazil

2nd best

A

A1

 

IRGA-417 (2009)

Brazil

Premium

A

A1

 

Koshihikari

Japan

Premium

A

A1

 

Hashemi

Iran

Premium

A

A1

 

BRS Primavera (2009)

Brazil

2nd best

A

A2

 

Pelde

Australia

Premium

A

A2

 

Khazar

Iran

2nd best

A

A2

 

PTT1

Thailand

2nd best

A

A2

 

IR64

Philippines

Premium

A

A2

High sweet taste

Zhongzheyou 1

China

Premium

A

A2

 

KDML105

Thailand

Premium

A

A2

 

Langi

Australia

2nd best

A

A2

 

Koshiibuki

Japan

2nd best

A

A2

 

Sambha Mahsuri

India

Premium

B

 

High water-like metallic

Swarna

India

2nd best

B

 

High astringent

IRRI-132

Philippines

2nd best

B

 

High sour/silage

Low sweet taste

  1. The varieties are listed in the tables in the order they appear in the cluster analysis tree chart
  2. aCluster A means were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than cluster B means for sweet taste (1.1 versus 0.5) and significantly lower (P < 0.01) for sour/silage (0.7 versus 1.4), water-like metallic (0.8 versus 1.3), and astringent (1.1 versus 1.6). Cluster A2 means for sweet taste (1.2 versus 0.9) and water-like metallic (0.7 versus 0.9) were significantly higher (P < 0.01) and lower (P < 0.02), respectively, than means for cluster A1