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