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