Skip to main content

Table 8 Ward’s cluster analysis using phase 1 texture attributes to categorize varieties

From: Important Sensory Properties Differentiating Premium Rice Varieties

Variety

Country

Type

Cluster A–B (r2 = 0.64)

Cluster B1–B2 (r2 = 0.11)

Common characteristicsa

IRGA-417 (2008)

Brazil

Premium

A

  

Khazar

Iran

2nd best

A

  

IRRI-132

Philippines

2nd best

A

  

BRS Jaçanã (2008)

Brazil

2nd best

A

  

IRGA-417 (2009)

Brazil

Premium

A

 

High Roughness

BRS Primavera I2009)

Brazil

2nd best

A

  

Sambha Mahsuri

India

Premium

A

  

Hashemi

Iran

Premium

A

  

Swarna

India

2nd best

A

  

Langi

Australia

2nd best

B

B1

 

Pelde

Australia

Premium

B

B1

High Initial Starchy Coating

KDML105

Thailand

Premium

B

B1

High Slickness

Guodao 6

China

2nd best

B

B1

High Stickiness to Lips

PTT1

Thailand

2nd best

B

B1

High Stickiness Between Grains

IR64

Philippines

Premium

B

B1

 

Zhongzheyou 1

China

Premium

B

B2

High Stickiness to Lips

Koshihikari

Japan

Premium

B

B2

Higher Slickness

Koshiibuki

Japan

2nd best

B

B2

Higher Initial Starchy Coating

Higher Stickiness Between Grains

  1. The varieties are listed in the tables in the order they appear in the cluster analysis tree chart
  2. aCluster A mean was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than cluster B mean for roughness (5.4 versus 4.7). Cluster B means were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than cluster A means for initial starchy coating (2.6 versus 2.0), slickness (5.4 versus 4.0), stickiness to lips (6.0 versus 3.4), and stickiness between grains (4.3 versus 3.1). Cluster B2 means were significantly higher (P < 0.01) than cluster B1 means for initial starchy coating (3.5 versus 2.3), slickness (6.4 versus 5.1), and stickiness between grains (4.8 versus 4.2). Cluster B1 mean was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than cluster B2 mean for roughness (4.9 versus 3.8) in cluster B2