## 3 Results and Discussion
### Ranking Descriptive Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Irish Assessors**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**German Assessors**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **FS-GRSS** & **FS-CLVR** & **FS-TMR** & **FS-GRSS** & **FS-CLVR** & **FS-TMR** \\ \hline Color & & & & & & \\ Yellow color & \(6.81\pm 0.9\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(6.33\pm 1.37\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.41\pm 0.85\)\({}^{\text{by}}\) & \(6.63\pm 1.12\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(6.41\pm 1.46\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(3.72\pm 1.37\)\({}^{\text{bx}}\) \\ Aroma & & & & & & \\ Buttery & \(4.66\pm 1.53\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(5.13\pm 1.51\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(3.48\pm 1.22\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(5.48\pm 1.86\) & \(5.93\pm 1.99\) & \(5.20\pm 1.93\) \\ Milky & \(3.89\pm 1.45\)\({}^{\text{y}}\) & \(4.05\pm 1.29\) & \(3.40\pm 1.24\) & \(5.03\pm 2.56\)\({}^{\text{x}}\) & \(4.66\pm 2.25\) & \(3.93\pm 2.08\) \\ Grassy & \(2.41\pm 1.17\) & \(2.54\pm 1.34\) & \(1.71\pm 0.72\) & \(2.50\pm 1.92\) & \(2.42\pm 1.97\) & \(1.69\pm 1.11\) \\ Rancid & \(1.39\pm 0.69\) & \(1.76\pm 1.40\) & \(1.31\pm 0.73\) & \(2.11\pm 1.76\) & \(2.05\pm 1.64\) & \(1.49\pm 1.08\) \\ Flavor & & & & & & \\ Salty & \(5.71\pm 1.13\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(5.33\pm 1.66\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(4.16\pm 1.77\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(6.24\pm 2.00\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(6.23\pm 1.47\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(4.81\pm 1.77\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Sweet & \(3.64\pm 1.50\) & \(3.99\pm 1.45\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(3.34\pm 1.41\) & \(3.92\pm 1.95\) & \(3.50\pm 1.76\) & \(3.61\pm 1.84\) \\ Creamy & \(6.29\pm 1.25\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(6.24\pm 1.37\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(4.91\pm 1.46\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(5.27\pm 1.90\) & \(5.10\pm 1.90\) & \(4.60\pm 2.03\) \\ Sour & \(1.64\pm 0.57\)\({}^{\text{y}}\) & \(1.76\pm 1.15\) & \(1.83\pm 0.79\) & \(2.85\pm 1.67\)\({}^{\text{x}}\) & \(2.97\pm 2.20\) & \(2.79\pm 1.82\) \\ Stale & \(1.51\pm 0.81\) & \(1.76\pm 1.07\) & \(1.61\pm 0.74\) & \(1.59\pm 0.78\) & \(1.80\pm 1.49\) & \(1.83\pm 1.44\) \\ Off flavor & \(1.44\pm 0.63\) & \(2.16\pm 1.84\) & \(1.56\pm 1.01\) & \(1.90\pm 1.33\) & \(1.81\pm 1.25\) & \(1.66\pm 1.33\) \\ Texture & & & & & & \\ Melt in the mouth & \(7.19\pm 0.85\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(6.79\pm 1.26\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(4.19\pm 1.73\)\({}^{\text{by}}\) & \(7.36\pm 1.20\) & \(6.86\pm 1.46\) & \(5.96\pm 2.21\)\({}^{\text{x}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Values are the average results \(\pm\)standard deviations. Within consumer group: values in the same row not sharing the same superscript (a, b) indicate significant difference (Confidence level 5%, identified using ANOVA and Tukey post). Cross-cultural comparison: values in the same row sharing the same superscript (x, y) indicate significant difference (confidence level 5%, identified using student \(t\)-test).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Cross-cultural comparison of RDA evaluation by Irish and German assessors of butters produced by different diets—FS-GRSS, FS-CLVR and FS-TMR. Irish assessors in this study also found that FS-GRSS and FS-CLVR butters were significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)) for melt in the mouth than FS-TMR butter. German assessors scored melt in the mouth statistically higher (\(p<0.05\)) for TS-TMR butter than Irish assessors. German assessors also found FS-CLVR butter significantly (\(p<0.05\)) more sour compared to Irish assessors, and this may relate to the lower rating of freshness as perceived in the consumer study (Intensity Scale Evaluation Table 1).