Consumer ratings of edible flower quality, mix, and color

K. M. Kelley, B. K. Behe, J. A. Biernbaum, K. L. Poff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations


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 (1 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)644-647
Number of pages4
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2001

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Horticulture


Dive into the research topics of 'Consumer ratings of edible flower quality, mix, and color'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this