Kerry Wilkinson

Prof. Kerry Wilkinson

The University of Adelaide
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

24Years (2003-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 April 2018 in Insects
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Kerry WilkinsonKerry Wilkinson
Kerry Wilkinson
BMBev Muhlhausler
Bev Muhlhausler
CMCrystal Motley
Crystal Motley
ACAnna Crump
Anna Crump
Heather J. BrayHeather J. Bray
Heather J. Bray
RARachel Ankeny
Rachel Ankeny
Insects have long been consumed as part of the diets of many Asian, African, and South American cultures. However, despite international agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations advocating the nutritional, environmental, and economic benefits of entomophagy, attitudinal barriers persist in Western societies. In Australia, the indigenous ‘bush tucker’ diet comprising witchetty grubs, honey ants, and Bogong moths is quite well known; however, in most Australian locales, the consumption of insects tends to occur only as a novelty. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the awareness and acceptance of insects as food. An online survey of 820 consumers found that 68% of participants had heard of entomophagy, but only 21% had previously eaten insects; witchetty grubs, ants, grasshoppers, and crickets were the most commonly tasted insects. Taste, appearance, safety, and quality were identified as the factors that were most likely to influence consumer willingness to try eating insects, but consumer attitudes towards entomophagy were underpinned by both food neophobia (i.e., reluctance to eat new or novel foods) and prior consumption of insects. Neophobic consumers were far less accepting of entomophagy than neophilic consumers, while consumers who had previously eaten insects were most accepting of insects as food. Incorporating insects into familiar products (e.g., biscuits) or cooked meals also improved their appeal. Collectively, these findings can be used by the food industry to devise production and/or marketing strategies that overcome barriers to insect consumption in Australia.

1 August 2008 in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KKKristen R. Kennison
Kristen R. Kennison
MGMark R. Gibberd
Mark R. Gibberd
APAlan P. Pollnitz
Alan P. Pollnitz
Kerry WilkinsonKerry Wilkinson
Kerry Wilkinson

1 December 2007 in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KKKristen R. Kennison
Kristen R. Kennison
Kerry WilkinsonKerry Wilkinson
Kerry Wilkinson
HWHannah G. Williams
Hannah G. Williams
JSJeanette H. Smith
Jeanette H. Smith
MGMark R. Gibberd
Mark R. Gibberd

1 April 2016 in Food Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JWJiaming Wang
Jiaming Wang
DCDimitra L. Capone
Dimitra L. Capone
Kerry WilkinsonKerry Wilkinson
Kerry Wilkinson
DJDavid Jeffery
David Jeffery

23 September 2009 in Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KKK.R. Kennison
K.R. Kennison
Kerry WilkinsonKerry Wilkinson
Kerry Wilkinson
APA.P. Pollnitz
A.P. Pollnitz
HWH.G. Williams
H.G. Williams
MGM.R. Gibberd
M.R. Gibberd
Background and Aims: Grapevine smoke exposure has been reported to produce smoke aromas in wine, resulting in ‘smoke taint’. This study describes the application of smoke to field‐grown grapevines between veraison and harvest to investigate the effect of timing and duration of smoke exposure on wine composition and sensory attributes. Methods and Results: Smoke was applied to grapevines as either a single smoke exposure to different vines at veraison or at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18 or 21 days post‐veraison or repeated smoke exposures to the same vines at veraison and then at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18 and 21 days post‐veraison. Gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry analysis of guaiacol, 4‐methylguaiacol, 4‐ethylguaiacol and 4‐ethylphenol showed elevated levels in all wines produced from fruit from smoked grapevines. Repeated smoke exposures had a cumulative effect on the concentration of these compounds. A trained sensory panel identified the aromas of ‘burnt rubber’, ‘smoked meat’, ‘leather’ and ‘disinfectant’ in all wines derived from smoke‐exposed grapevines but not in control wines. Conclusions: Smoke application to field‐grown grapevines between veraison and harvest can influence the accumulation of volatile phenols and intensity of smoke aromas in resultant wines. A peak period of vine sensitivity to smoke at 7 days post‐veraison is identified. Repeated smoke exposures have a cumulative effect. Significance of the Study: This is the first study to report the deliberate and controlled smoke application to field‐grown grapevines demonstrating the timing and duration of smoke exposure to significantly affect wine chemical and sensory characters.