BIBLIOGRAPHY BALANGEN, DEO F. APRIL 2008. A...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BALANGEN, DEO F. APRIL 2008. A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated
Carrot Patty, A Vegetable Based Product. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Jovita M. Sim, MSc
ABSTRACT
This study is an evaluation of a new carrot burger product introduced by the
researcher and it aimed to find out the level and factors affecting the acceptability of
consumers. The study also aimed to find out the potential consumers.
The study was conducted on February 2008 and two samples were introduced
namely: Carrot Burger 101 and Carrot Burger 102, which was compared and evaluated.
Sensory evaluation/ taste-test was used in the product evaluation, and it was set-up at the
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management. Evaluation forms
were distributed to the panelist and they were briefed and instructed before proceeding to
the sensory test. Data gathered were tabulated and analyze using the T-test, and presented
using mean, percentage and frequency counts.
A total of 50 students’ cook/chef, burger lovers, and teachers were the
evaluators/taste panelist of the product. Out of the 50 panelists, 32 were females and most
of them were from age bracket 14-20 years old. As to employment, 29 were unemployed,
usually college student and single.
Results of the study showed that Carrot Burger products were accepted based on
the evaluators/taste-panelist response/rating. In terms of acceptability of color, texture,
taste, packaging, appearance and aroma the two Carrot Burgers were not significantly
different but in terms of the general acceptability, the difference of Carrot Burger 101 and
Carrot burger 102 were highly significant. This shows that Carrot Burger 102 is more
accepted. It is therefore recommended to improve the product based on the suggestions
and comments of panelist. It is further recommended that further research be conducted
to determine the acceptability of the product when supplied to different outlets given a set
of price.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..
i
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….
i
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………..
iii
INTRODUCTION
Rationale ………………………………………………………………..
1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………….
2
Objectives of the Study………………………………………………….
2
Importance of the Study…………………………………………………
3
Scope and Limitation of the Study………………………………………
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
History of Carrot…………………………………………………………
4
Nutritional Contents of Carrot…………………………………………...
5
Nutritional Contents and Uses of Carrots………………………………..
7
Product Innovation……………………………………………………….
9
Nature of Consumers on Sensory Evaluation……………………………
10
Sensory Evaluation………………………………………………………
11
Product Evaluation……………………………………………………….
12
Consumers Acceptance…………………………………………………..
12
Product Acceptability…………………………………………………….
13
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………
13
iii
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study……………………………………………
15
Product Materials………………………………………………………...
15
Product Preparation……………………………………….…….………..
15
Judges / Evaluators. …………………………………………..………….
15
Evaluator Recruitment. ………………………………………………….
16
Product Evaluation……………………………………………………….
16
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….
17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Carrot Patty Processing Process........………… ………..…...…..………
18
Distribution of Evaluators/Judges/
Taste Panelists......….……………………………………………………
18
Profile of Evaluators/Judges Panelist......…….... ……………………….
19
Level of Acceptability of Evaluators/Judges
24
and Taste Panelist on CB 101..........................................................…….
Level of Acceptability of Evaluators/Judges
28
and Taste Panelist on CB 102........................................................……..
Distribution of Distinctive Taste and
Preferred Shape of the CB101
and CB102………………………………………………….…………….
33
General Acceptability of Panelist
On Carrot Burger 101 and 102........…. …………………………………
35
Price Acceptability of Carrot Burger 101
And 102 And Suggested Price
of The Taste Panelist…………………………………………………….
36
Panelist Outlook on Carrot. Burger Product……………………………..
37
Reasons Why Panelist do not
Like the Product.......................................………………………………..
38
iv
Comments and Suggestions of the
Panelist for the Improvement of
the Carrot Burger Product…………………………….…………………
39
Competing products of Carrot
Burger Products Produced
By the Researcher………………………………………………………..
40
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary…………………………………………………………………
42
Conclusions………………………………………………………………
43
Recommendations……………………………………………………….
44
LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………….……
45
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………..
47
v
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Nowadays, food is still the most viable business enterprise because it is one of the
basic needs in order to live. Thus, many food companies are flooding the market of
innovated products. At present, entrepreneurs are into product development through
innovation or imitation. The reason for product innovation is to come up with a product
that is close to an existing product with very high market demand.
In today’s generation, customers are very keen, they are choosy and most of all
they are now health conscious. Consumers nowadays, choose food products that are safe,
nutritious and clean food and good for the health. Thus coming up with this carrot patty
an innovation of the commercial patties used in burger stands like Big Mac, fast foods
like Jollibee, McDonald, and Greenwich and so on which is usually made of flour, meat
and fish resulting to high price. The innovations of this product were reduction of
additives used and utilizes carrots rather than meat. Carrots are one of the major crops
grown in the Cordillera specifically in cooler parts of Benguet and Mountain Province.
This vegetable crop contains many nutrients like calcium, phosphorus, iron,
sodium, potassium vitamin C, B, and large amount of vitamin A which is also known as
the beta-carotene giving its orange color. This is also used as medicines for heart attacks,
hangovers and also for skin diseases, impurities, acne eritema appearance of wrinkles,
and difficulty in tanning. Nonetheless, carrot is very common as vegetable salad and is
eaten raw or cooked; it can also be used as savory dishes. At present it is well known for
its’ juice healing products.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
2
Statement of the Problem
The study seeked to answer the following questions?
1. What is the profile of the respondents/judges/taste panelists?
2. Who are the consumers or potential consumers of the carrot patty products based
on the evaluator’s profile?
3. What is the level of acceptability of consumers on carrot patty products?
In terms of:
a. Color
b. Texture
c. Appearance
d. Shape
e. Aroma
f. Taste
g. Packaging
h. Acceptability
4. What are the criteria/ factors affecting the acceptability of carrot patty?
Objectives of the Study
The study aimed to:
1. Identify the consumers or potentials consumers of carrot patty products based
on the taste panel’s profile.
2. Know the level of acceptability of consumers on carrot patty as to the color,
texture, appearance, shape, aroma, taste, packaging, general acceptability.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
3
3. To know the factors affecting the acceptability of carrot patty.
Importance of the Study
At present the government is promoting entrepreneurship in order to reduce the
problem of unemployment in the locality, through entrepreneurship, a new product is
develop, a new market is established, additional tax is paid to the government increasing
government income. The result of this study will provide information to those
entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs who are aspiring to introduce nutritious,
delicious and safe food products like carroty patty. The acceptability of this product will
be a guide in the decision of investing in carrot patty or other similar vegetable based
patty. The results will also serve as reference for future similar research.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study is concerned on the acceptability of the consumers of this innovated
product. The study will also find if the product could be sold in the market.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
History of Carrot
The Carrot originated some 5000 years ago in Middle Asia around Afghanistan,
and slowly spread into the Mediterranean area. The first carrots were white, purple, red,
yellow/green and black - not orange. Its roots were thin and turnip shaped. Temple
drawings from Egypt in 2000 B.C. show a plant, which some Egyptologists believe to
represent a large carrot. Egyptian papyruses contain information about treatment with
carrot and its seeds were found in pharaoh crypts. Carrot seeds have been found in
prehistoric Swiss lake dwellings in Ronbenhausen giving clear evidence of human
consumption. There is however no evidence of cultivation at this stage, more likely they
were used for medicinal purposes. Similar findings appear also in ancient Glastonbury.
Neolithic people savored the roots of the wild carrot for its sweet, succulent flavor.
The name Carota for the garden Carrot is found first in the writings of Athenaeus
(A.D. 200), and in the book on cookery by Apicius Czclius. It was Galen the Greek
physician (second century A.D.) who named the wild carrot Daucus pastinaca (adding
the name Daucus) to distinguish the Carrot from the Parsnip, though confusion remained
steadfast until botanist Linnaeus set the record straight in the 18th century with his
system of plant classification. The scientific name he gave the carrot is Daucus carota, the
parsnip Pastinaca sativa (Anonymous, 2007).
The carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus) is a root vegetable, usually orange or
white, or pink in color, with a crisp texture when fresh. The edible part of it is the taproot.
It is a domesticated form of the wild carrot Daucus carota, native to Europe and
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
5
southwestern Asia. It has been bred for its greatly enlarged and more palatable, less
woody-textured edible taproot, but is still the same species.
It is a biennial plant which grows a rosette of leaves in the spring and summer,
while building up the stout taproot, which stores large amounts of sugars for the plant to
flower in the second year. The flowering stem grows to about 1 m tall, with an umbel of
white flowers (Wikipidia, 2007).
Nutritional Contents of Carrots
Carrots are nutritional heroes; they store a goldmine of nutrients. No other
vegetable or fruit contains as much carotene as carrots, which the body converts to
vitamin A. This is a truly versatile vegetable and an excellent source of vitamins B and C
as well as calcium pectate, an extraordinary pectin fiber that has been found to have
cholesterol-lowering properties. The carrot is a herbaceous plant containing about 87%
water,
rich
in
mineral
salts
and
vitamins
(B,
C,
D,
and
E).
Raw carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A and potassium; they contain
vitamin C, vitamin B6, thiamine, folic acid, and magnesium.
Cooked carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A, a good source of potassium, and
contain vitamin B6, copper, folic acid, and magnesium. The high level of beta-carotene is
very important and gives carrots their distinctive orange color.
Carrots also contain, in smaller amounts, essential oils, carbohydrates and
nitrogenous composites. They are well known for their sweetening, anti anemic, healing,
diuretic, remineralizing and sedative properties. In order to assimilate the greatest
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
6
quantity of the nutrients present in carrots, it is important to chew them well - they are the
exception to the rule - they are more nutritious cooked than raw (Anonymous, 2007).
Composition and energetic value of the carrots are as follows: Edible part 95%,
Water 91.6g, Proteins 1.1g, Lipids 0g, Available sugars 7.6g, Nutritional fiber 3.1g,
Energy 33kcal , Sodium 95mg, Potassium 220mg, Iron 0.7mg, Calcium 44mg,
Phosphorus 37mg, Niacin 0.7mg, Vitamin C 4mg
One carrot 7 inches long and about 1 inch in diameter, yields the following
nutrients: 27 mg. Calcium, 26 mg. Phosphorus, 0.5 mg. Iron, 34 mg. Sodium, 246 mg.
Potassium, 7,930 I.U. vitamin A, trace amounts of vitamin B-complex, 6 mg and
Vitamin C (Wikipedia 2007).
This common vegetable, usually eaten raw in salads and also used to prepare
sauces and savory dishes, contains several active ingredients, among which beta-
carotene, which is a substance that is transformed by the organism into Vitamin A.
Beta Carotene (Vitamin A) is necessary for proper growth & repair of body
tissues; helps maintain smooth, soft disease-free skin; helps protect the mucous
membranes of the mouth, nose, throat & lungs, thereby reducing susceptibility to
infections; protects against air pollutants (antioxidant effect against free radicals);
counteracts night-blindness & weak eyesight; and aids in bone & teeth formation. Current
medical research shows that foods rich in Beta Carotene will help reduce the risk of lung
cancer (especially in smokers who literally 'burn' a lot of Vitamin A) & certain oral
cancers. Unlike Vitamin A from fish liver oil, Beta Carotene is non-toxic.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
7
Nutritional Contents and Uses of Carrots
Italian National Institute of Nutrition states that the ancient healers have regarded
carrot as the 'herbal healer' of skin diseases. Indeed Vitamin A or beta-carotene, of which
carrot is rich, can be considered the main vitamins for the skin. Dry skin, with impurities,
acne, and difficulty in tanning, sunburns, eritema, and premature appearance of wrinkles -
all these things can depend largely on an insufficient intake of this vitamin.
Carrots are credited with many medicinal properties; they are said to cleanse the
intestines and to be diuretic, mineralizing, anti-diarrhea, an overall tonic and anti-anemic.
Carrot is rich in alkaline elements, which purify and revitalize the blood. They nourish
the entire system and help in the maintenance of acid-alkaline balance in the body. The
carrot also has a reputation as a vegetable that helps to maintain good eyesight. Raw
grated carrot can be applied as a compress to burns for a soothing effect. Its highly
energizing juice has a particularly beneficial effect on the liver. Consumed in excessive
quantities, carrots can cause the skin to turn yellow; this phenomenon, which is called
“Carotenemia” and caused by the carotene contained in carrots, is frequently seen in
young children but is not at all dangerous (Anonymous, 2007).
Medicinally, carrot was used as a stimulant in the treatment of dropsy, flatulence,
chronic coughs, dysentery, windy colic, chronic renal diseases and a host of other uses.
Eating carrots is also good for allergies, anemia, rheumatism, tonic for the nervous
system. Everyone knows they improve vision; But it does not stop there the delicious
carrot is good for diarrhea, constipation (very high in fiber), intestinal inflammation,
cleansing the blood (a liver tonic), an immune system tonic. Carrot is traditionally
recommended to weak, sickly or rickety children, to convalescents or pregnant women,
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
8
its anti-anemic properties having been famous for a long time. Tea made the seeds can
promote the onset of menstruation. It is effective on skin problems including broken
veins/capillaries, burns, creeping impetigo, wrinkles and sun damage. Carrots also help
in stimulating milk flow during lactation. Believe it or not the carrot is also effective
against roundworms and dandruff. Pureed carrots are good for babies with diarrhea,
providing essential nutrients and natural sugars (Anonymous, 2007).
The carrot is an ancient remedy mentioned in the writings of Pliny. Studies
completed recently show that increasing daily consumption of carrots as a good source of
beta-carotene can significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes in women.
According to another study, stroke patients are more likely to survive and recover if they
have significant levels of beta-carotene in their bloodstream. Regular consumption of
carrots may also reduce the risk of lung and larynx cancer, even in former smokers. The
carrot has been used to treat intestinal parasites, diarrhea, digestive problems, and high
cholesterol. Perhaps its most famous use, to help eyesight, has been confirmed by
science: carrots contain vitamin A, a source of retinal, a compound that in combination
with proteins forms the visual pigments of the retinal rods and cones (Anonymous, 2007).
Carrot is also a wonderfully cleansing medicine. Carrot supports the liver, and
stimulates urine flow and the removal of waste by the kidneys. The juice of organically
grown carrots is a delicious drink and a valuable detoxifier. Carrots are rich in carotene,
which is converted to vitamin A by the liver. This nutrient acts to improve night
blindness as well as vision in general. The raw root, grated or mashed, is a safe treatment
for threadworms, especially in children. Wild carrot leaves are a good diuretic. They have
been used to counter cystitis and kidney stone formation, and to diminish stones that have
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
9
already formed. The seeds are also diuretic and carminative. They stimulate menstruation
and have been used in folk medicine as a treatment for hangovers. Both leaves and seeds
relieve flatulence and gassy colic, and are a useful remedy for settling the digestion and
upsets of the stomach (Anonymous, 2007).
Product Innovation
The term innovation may refer to both radical and incremental changes to
products, processes or services. The often unspoken goal of innovation is to solve a
problem. Innovation is an important topic in the study of economics, business,
technology, sociology, engineers. Since innovation is also considered a major driver of
the economy, the factors that lead to innovation are also considered to be critical to policy
makers.
The Free Encylopedia states that in the organisational context, innovation may be
linked to performance and growth through improvements in efficiency, productivity,
quality, competitive positioning, market share, etc. All organisations can innovate,
including for example hospitals, universities, and local governments (Wikipedia 2007).
While innovation typically adds value, innovation may also have a negative or
destructive effect as new developments clear away or change old organizational forms
and practices. Organizations that do not innovate effectively may be destroyed by those
that do. Hence innovation typically involves risk. A key challenge in innovation is
maintaining a balance between process and product innovations where process
innovations tend to involve a business model which may develop shareholder satisfaction
through improved efficiencies while product innovations develop customer support
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
10
however at the risk of costly R&D that can erode shareholder returns. Four commonly
accepted types of innovation are Product, Process, Position and Paradigm (Tidd, Bessant
and Pavitt, 2005).
Innovation has been studied in a variety of contexts, including in relation to
technology, commerce, social systems, economic development, and policy construction.
There are, therefore, naturally a wide range of approaches to conceptualising innovation
in the scholarly literature (Fagerberg et al., 2004).
Fortunately, however, a consistent theme may be identified: innovation is
typically understood as the introduction of something new and useful, for example
introducing new methods, techniques, or practices or new or altered products and
services (Wikipedia 2007).
Nature of Consumers on Sensory Evaluation
As cited by Gatchalian (1989), Martin (1973) and Stone and Sidel (1978) stated
that consider customers as naïve, not even capable of performing simple sensory
evaluation tasks. They are known to be very subjective (Elrod, 1978), “quick to accept
familiar and slow to approved the unusual”) Girardot, 1952). Often times, the consumer
spends little time using the product and much less in evaluating it (Elrod, 1978), They are
neither knowledgeable about descriptive terms used in sensory evaluation nor are they
patient enough to try to understand long explanations or instructions. Consumers are also
impressionistic and are quick to make conclusions about commodities presented to them
for judgment mainly on their own feelings and perceptions. Consequently, their
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
11
impressions and judgment may be entirely different from those of trained laboratory
panelist (Cross, et al., 1978. Klemmer 1968; Pangborn and Russel, 1976).
Sensory Evaluation
Sensory Evaluation as defined by the Sensory Evaluation Division Of the Institute
of Food technologies is a scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and
interpret reactions to those characteristic of foods and materials as they perceived by the
senses of sight of smell, smell, taste touch and hearing. Sensory evaluation is a procedure
that is used quite often in foods science and technology because such sensory
characteristics of foods products as flavor (odor and taste), color and texture are closely
involved with consumer appreciation and acceptance (Wasserman, 1981). It is no more
an art, which can be done only by few experts. It has become a science, which can be
taught in a very systematic way.
The simple concept of sensory tests has been utilized even at the earliest periods of
mans existence. Man, since creation, has relied on his senses and experience in the
selection of commodities that he needs (Gorman, 1975). The distinct for survival has
sharpened all his faculties to enable him to select the safe from the harmful. Wrong
selection could mean dissatisfaction, pain or even death. Though primitive, the methods
applied have proven their worth in the form of man’s continued experience (Gatchalian
1989).
Total or overall sensory evaluation of foods is highly complex because it involves
the use of several senses, each of which evaluating one sensory parameter (Kramer,
1973a). Although sensory evaluation is the ultimate measure of sensory qualities of food
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
12
products, it is always subjective, time consuming and costly (Noble, 1975). Due to these
problems or precision, calibration and/or cost it is desirable in many instances to replace
subjective measurements of the sensory properties of foods with objective physical
chemical methods, which are always calibratable, using appropriate references of blanks
(Kramer, 1973a; Kramer, 1969).
Product Evaluation
A cited by Mabesa (1986), preference tests between company and competitive
products should be regularly conducted for assurance of a place in the market or to check
for possible shift in consumer acceptance. This activity becomes most useful when a
slight slump in product sale starts to show. Unless some definite factors can be attributed
to the decline, product quality and acceptability must be reviewed (Klemmer, 1968).
Product evaluation may also include development of objective test procedures on
the basis of sensory data. Perhaps correlation studies between known chemical and
physical tests and sensory evaluation results could be done. It is of great importance
especially to the industry to be able to translate sensory information into those
measurable by instruments. This way, data could be anchored to some objective tests
(Elliot, 1969; Kramer, 1976; Powers, 1976; Quinlan, et al., 1974; Stone and Sidel, 1978;
Szczesniak, 1972; Tilgner, 1962).
Consumer Acceptance
Gatchalian (1989), quoted that consumer acceptance indicates the degree of like
or dislike for a given product. The expected response is either a rejection or acceptance
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
13
(Pangborn, 1977) in varying degrees. Comparisons between products are not used
necessarily required and preference is not expected and vice versa. A general term used
to apply to tests for both outcomes is called “effective sensory test” (Stone and Sidel,
1978). Generally, A large number of respondents is required for present target or
potential target populations (SED, IFT; 1981). Panel members are selected in accordance
with a number of criteria which frequently include: (1) previous use of the product, (2)
size of the family or age of specific family members, (3) occupation of household, (4)
economic or social level and 5 geographic areas (SED, IFT; 1981).
Product Acceptability
As cited by Del Rosario (2007), entrepreneurs or processors should have
knowledge on the consumer acceptability on their products. It is necessary in finding out
the appropriateness of the product to prospective buyers, determining the market
positioning of their products, and in market positioning of their products. It also aids in
the improvement of a product based on the comments of consumers who tested the
product (Sim, 2005).
Definition of Terms
Product – It is a good, service or idea consisting of bundle of tangible and
intangible attributes that satisfies consumers and received for value.
Product strategy- Approaches in making the product more attractive to the
customers and can include quality, brand, label and packaging among others.
Price- the value paid for a product or service
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
14
Profile – refers to the formal documentation of the strengths and weaknesses of a
business unit
Educational attainment – refers to the formal attendance in school as required by
the Department of Education.
Innovation–an idea or practices imposing a new material or technology that is
considered to be new by the individual, because it is qualifiedly different from existing
firms.
Appearance and color– the size and shape of pieces of food and the brightness and
trueness of the color of a product is judge by the eye. Sight also plays a part in
assessment of the light of foods like breads and cakes.
Texture – refers to the coarseness or smoothness of the product considering the
grainess, brittleness and chewiness.
Taste – is the perception of stimuli and is sensed by the taste buds. Taste buds are
minute depressions located primarily located in the papillae (bright-pink spots) on the
tongue.
Flavor – is the sensation caused by, and those properties of any substances taken
into the mouth, which stimulate one or both of the sense of taste and smell.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
15
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
The study was set-up at the Department of Agricultural Economics and
Agribusiness Management (DAEAM) building, College of Agriculture, Benguet State
University. This study was conducted on February 2008.
Product Materials
Carrots
Pepper
Salt
Garlic
Onions
Egg
Soy
Sauce
Cornstarch
Product Preparation
Sanitize all the materials to avoid food contamination then wash with clean water
before peeling. Grate the carrot and slice the ingredients into small pieces, then mix it
together with the egg and flour. After mixing shape it into your desirable shape (round,
square). Then fry it on a pan with the boiling lard at a designated time and temperature.
Judges/Evaluators
The evaluators/taste-panelists of the study are the students who are
knowledgeable on cooking and burger lovers, teachers, cook/chef and burger stand
seller/owner. There were twenty-eight (28) student panelists (practically burger lovers
and knowledgeable in cooking) and twenty-two (22) employees/cook/burger seller/stand
owners a total of 50 evaluators all in all.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
16
Evaluator Recruitment
Selection and recruitment of evaluator’s/judges/taste panelist starts just after the
research proposal has been approved. The researcher-conducted survey approached to
students, employees, cook and burger seller/stand owners where they are invited to
evaluate the product. Selected evaluators, who are willing to come in a designated given
time and date, were given invitation letter for the schedule or time and date of the sensory
evaluation.
Recruitment
Accept
Do not accept (reject) back to recruitment
Screening
Students
Employees/cook/burger seller/stand owners
Evaluation of the product
Figure 1. Steps in selection of taste panelists/evaluators
Product Evaluation
Evaluation of this product is done through sensory or taste-test evaluation, which was
set in the Month of February 2008. The product that was tested was prepared and cooked
on the day it was evaluated. Two tables were set up on the Department of Agricultural
Economics and Agribusiness Management (DAEAM) building, Benguet State
University, where the panelist evaluated the product. Panelists were divided into two
categories in evaluating the product. Students were the first one to evaluate the product
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
17
afterwards the employees/cook /burger stand seller/owner are next. Each and every one
of them were given a copy of the evaluation form, simple briefing was done to the taste
panelists for them to be familiarizes with the terminologies used in the procedure of the
evaluation and also for the general step by step procedure. Taste panelist/evaluators were
required to answer first the necessary questions of the profile before proceeding to the
product evaluation. Panelist/evaluators were required not to chew gums 2 hours before
the taste-test. Panelist/evaluators were advised to gurgle water before proceeding to the
next sample. As they taste the product they answer the evaluation sheet at the same time.
Data Analysis
Results of the sensory evaluation were collected by the researcher and were presented
analyzed and interpreted using simple statistical tools such as: frequency counts,
percentage, mean, and t-test.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Carrot Patty Processing Process
The processing technology employed in the production of carrot patty was not
similar to the other patties produce by the big corporations like ROELS Food
Corporation, Pampangas Best, Nadeco Meifoods etc… This was a new innovated product
made up of nutritious and vegetable ingredients without additives of seasoning, food
coloring and MSG (Monosodium glutamate). This is a cholesterol free and high nutrient
content rich in vitamin A. It is made up of starch; onions, pepper, garlic, salt etc. and
carrot as the main ingredient.
Distribution of Taste Panelist
Product acceptability test was done through taste-test/sensory evaluation to the
target market of the product, which includes; 56% students distributed as follows 32%
were knowledgeable on cooking and 24% burger lovers, there were also 8% faculties and
staff and 10% burger stand owners. In addition, the researcher invited 26%
knowledgeable evaluators like cook/ chef to further evaluate the product. Taste-
test/sensory evaluation was done at the Department Agricultural Economics and
Agribusiness Management building. Distribution of taste panelist is shown in Table 1.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
19
Table 1. Distribution of taste panelist
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)_________
Participating Students
Burger
lovers
16
32
Knowledgeable
on
cooking
12
24
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
28
56
________________________________________________________________________
Occupation/Profession
Faculty
and
staff
4
8
Burger
stand
seller/owner
5
10
Cook/Chef
13
26
Students 28
56
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50
100
Profile of Evaluators/Taste Panelist
Table 2 shows the profile of panelist as to sex, age, monthly allowance/income
employment, educational attainment and civil status.
Sex. Thirty six percent 36 % are male and 64 % are female.
Age. Fifty six 56 % were from the bracket age of 14-20, 20 % were from ages 21-
30, 6 % were from ages 31-40, 8 % were from ages 41-0, 8 % were from ages 51-60, and
2 % were from 60 and above.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
20
Monthly allowance/income. Forty percent (40 %) of the panelists’ monthly
allowance/income ranges from 1000 and below, 22 % of the panelist had a monthly
allowance/income ranging from 1000-3000, 22 % of the panelists’ allowance/ income
ranged from 3000-6000, 8% panelists has a monthly allowance of 6000-10000 and the
least panelist fall from 10,000 and above.
Employment. Fifty-six 56 % were students, 26 % were cook/chef, 8% were
faculties and staff and 10 % were burger stand seller/owner.
Educational attainment/level. Two percent 2 % were elementary level, 2 % were
elementary graduate, 14 % were high school level, 8 % were high school graduate, 52 %
were college level and there were 22 % evaluators/judges/taste-panelist who were college
graduate.
Civil
status. Sixty-eight 68 % were single, 30% were married and 2 % widowed.
Figure 2 and 3 shows the students and the taste panelist evaluating the Carrot Burger
product.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
21
Table 2. Profile of evaluators/taste panelist
PROFILE
OF
EVALUATORS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
________________________________________________________________________
Sex
Male
18
36
Female
32
64
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50
100
________________________________________________________________________
Age
14-20
28
56
21-30
10
20
31-40
3
6
41-50
4
8
51-60
4
8
61-70
1
2
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50
100
________________________________________________________________________
Mean Age: 26.23
________________________________________________________________________
Monthly Allowance/Income
1000
and
below 20
40
1000-3000
11
22
3000-6000
11
22
6000-10,000
4
8
10,000
and
above
4
8
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50 100
Mean: 3.270
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
22
Table 2. Continued...
PROFILE OF EVALUATORS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
_______________________________________________________________________
Employment
Employed
23
46
Unemployed
27
54
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50
100
________________________________________________________________________
Educational
Level/Attainment
Elementary
Level
1
2
Elementary
graduate
1
2
High
school
Level
7
14
High school Graduate
4
8
College Level
24
48
College Graduate
11
22
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50 100
________________________________________________________________________
Status
Single
34
68
Married
15
30
Widowed
1
2
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50 100
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
23
Figure 2. The students of Entrepreneurial Technology answering the profile
Figure 3. Burger lovers evaluating the Carrot Burger 102
Level of Acceptability of Evaluators/Judges/Taste
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
24
Panelist on Carrot Burger 101
Evaluators/judges/taste
panelist
evaluated the product as to color, appearance,
texture, shape, taste, aroma, packaging and general acceptability.
Acceptability ratings used in the taste-test/ sensory evaluation scale are as
follows: 7-extremely like, 6-like, 5-slightly like, 4-Neither dislike or like, 3-slightly like,
2-dislike, 1-extremely dislike. Result of the level of acceptability of the
judges/evaluators/taste panelist is shown in Table 3.
Appearance. The panelist evaluated cooked Carrot Burger and results showed that
half (50 %) of the panelist like the appearance of the product, 20 % slightly like, and 16
% extremely like the appearance. On the other hand, 4 % slightly dislike, another 4 %
dislike and 6 % neither dislike nor like the appearance of the product. Result implies that
majority of the taste-panelist still like the product. Figure 4 shows the appearance of the
Carrot Burger 101.
Figure 4. Appearance of CB 101 (Carrot Burger 101)
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
25
Aroma. Aroma is an important factor to be evaluated on a product especially food
because it plays a big role in providing an idea of the taste of a food product. The aroma
of Carrot Burger 101 smells like meat but the garlic and onions are very strong and a
little smells of carrot. From the selected evaluators/judges, majority (48 %) like its
smell/aroma, 22 % like it, 12 % neither dislike nor like it and there were 8 % who
extremely like the smell, but still there were 8 % who slightly dislike, 8 % dislike and 2%
extremely dislike it due to the strong smell of the garlic and onions as commented by the
cook/chef.
Color. The carrot burger 101 is light orange in color, which is the color of the
main ingredient. Most of the evaluators like it, as an evident on the evaluation results of
carrot burger 101, majority (54 %) of the panelist like the color, 24 % of the panelist like
it slightly, 8 % like it extremely, 6 % slightly dislike, 4 % also dislike and there were 4 %
of the taste panelists/evaluators who neither dislike or like the color of the product. This
implies that the taste-panelists/evaluators like the color of the carrot burger 101.
Packaging and label. The packaging material in Carrot Burger 101 is similar with
the packaging of Roel’s Food Corporation, Carrot Burger were labeled in Styrofoam
before wrapping it with cellophane. The only difference is the cellophane used by the
Roel’s Food Corporation is printed with its label. Packaging is used to promote the
product presentable and protection against contamination, prolonging the shelf life of a
product.
Most (36 %) of the evaluators/ judges like the packaging and 34 % extremely like,
and 12 % slightly like its packaging. There were also 6 % panelist who slightly dislike
and 4 % dislike it for the reason that its’ packaging is not environment friendly. Still, 2 %
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
26
of the panelists were undecided whether they neither like nor dislike the packaging.
Result shows that evaluators like the packaging because it is colorful and attractive to
consumers/customers. Packaging of the CB 101 is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Packaging of CB 101 (Carrot Burger 101)
Taste. For the taste parameter, most (36 %) of the panelist like the taste, 30 %
slightly like it and there are 18 % who extremely like the taste, 6 % panelist slightly
dislike, 4 % dislike and another 4 % cannot decide whether they like it or not.
Texture. Texture of a product is also important because it affects the
marketability. In Carrot Burger 101 half (50 %) of the evaluators/judges like, 28 %
slightly like, and 8 % extremely like. There were 8 % panelists who dislike, 8 % slightly
dislike it, and 4 % panelists neither dislike nor like it.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
27
Table 3. Level of acceptability of evaluators/judges/taste-panelist on Carrot Burger 101
CRITERIA
LIKE
LIKE
SLIGHTLY NEITHER SLIGHTLY DISLIKE EXTREMELY
EXTREMELY
LIKE
DISLIKE NOR LIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance 8 16 25 50 10 20 3 6 3 6 2 4 - -
Aroma 4 8 24 48 11 22 6 12 6 12 1 2 1 2
Color
4 8 27 54 12 24 2 4 3 6 3 6 - -
Packaging 17 34 19 36 6 12 1 26 1 2 3 6 - -
Taste 9 18 19 36 15 30 2 4 2 4 3 6 - -
Texture 4 8 25 50 14 28 2 4 2 4 4 8
- -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
28
Level of Acceptability of Evaluators/Judges
Panelist on Carrot Burger 102
Evaluators/ taste-panelist of this product were the same persons who evaluated the
CB 101, similar taste-test strategies and tools were employed on the second product.
Result on the level of acceptability of the taste panelist on Carrot Burger 102 is shown in
Table 4.
Appearance. Most (32 %) just like it, 30 % slightly like and 14 % gives a rating of
one, which means they like it extremely and 4 % of the panelist neither dislike nor like its
appearance. This implies that Carrot Burger 102 passed in the acceptability in appearance
as evaluated by the evaluators/judges. Appearance of the Carrot Burger 102 is shown in
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Appearance of CB 102 (Carrot Burger 102)
Aroma. Fifty six (56 %) like the smell, 28 % slightly like it and 8 % extremely
like, due to its meaty like smell, 6 % neither dislike nor like and 2 % slightly dislike its
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
29
aroma.
Color. The color of Carrot Burger 102 is the same as those patty products made
up of beef. Majority (32 %) Panelist rated like the color of the product, 24 % extremely
like it, 20 % panelist who neither dislike nor like the product color, 20% slightly like, 2 %
neither dislike nor like and only 2 % slightly dislike the color. Result shows that majority
likes and like extremely the color of the CB 102.
Packaging and label. The packaging employed in CB 102 uses only cellophane to
cover the product, and most (36 %) like the packaging unlike Carrot Burger 101 which
uses Styrofoam that is not environment friendly, 26 % slightly like the material used,
14% extremely like it, 14 % neither like nor dislike the packaging, 8 % dislike the cover
and 2 % slightly dislike it because is not so attractive and during arrangement/delivery
the product may be damaged.
Figure 7. Packaging of CB102 (Carrot Burger)
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
30
Taste. For the taste parameter of the Carrot Burger 102 majority, (52 %) like it,
24% extremely like the taste and few 12 % slightly like. There were also 4 % who
slightly dislike and 4 % neither like nor dislike the taste of the product.
Texture. Carrot Burger 102 has a soft texture and majority (52 %) of the panelist
rated it 2 meaning they like the texture of the product, and 22 % like it extremely, 22 %
slightly like and only two (4 %) extremely dislike its texture.
Results of the evaluation on the carrot Burger 102 by the evaluators/taste panelist
from its color, appearance packaging aroma texture and taste as shown in the discussion
above, is acceptable to the panelist likewise to the target consumers.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
31
Table 4. Level of acceptability of evaluators/judges/taste-panelist on Carrot Burger 102
CRITERIA
LIKE
LIKE SLIGHTLY NEITHER
SLIGHTLY DISLIKE EXTREMELY
EXTREMELY LIKE DISLIKE NOR LIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE ___
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appearance 7 14 6 32 15 3 2 4 - - - - - -
Aroma 4 8 28 56 14 28 3 6 1 2 - - - -
Color
12 24 26 32 10 20 1 2 1 2 - - - -
Packaging 7 14 18 36 13 26 7 14 1 2 4 8 - -
Taste
12 24 28 56 6 12 2 4 2 4 - - - -
Texture 11 12 26 52 11 22 - - - - - - 2 4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
32
Net Weight: 250 grams (8.82 oz) KEEP IT FROZEN
Sweet
Nutritious
d
Sweety, meaty ulam burger
Manufactured by:
Department of Health DONOT LITTER De_Mufette Food Corporation
FD 747 Km. 5 La Trinidad, Benguet
Front
Ingredients: Carrots, soy sauce,
Nutrition Facts
Salt, pepper, onions, garlic, cornstarch
Serving size 5 pieces (50 g)
Serving per pack 5 pieces
BEST BEFORE:
Amount per serving
% daily value
Total Fat 0g
0%
Proteins 1.1g
5%
Lipids 0 g
0%
Did you know that Beta carotene (vitamin A)
Sugars 7.6g
6%
is necess sary for proper growth & repair body
Nutritional fiber 3.1 g
2%
tissues; helps maintain smooth, soft diseases-
Sodium 95mg 9%
free skin; helps protect the mucous
Potassium 220mg 14%
membranes of the mouth, nose, throat and
Iron 0.7mg
4%
lungs reducing susceptibility infections and
Calcium 44mg
7%
protects against pollutants. It also counter
Phosphorus 37mg
2%
acts night-blindness& weak eyesight; and aid
Niacin 0.7 mg_________ 1%_
in bone & teeth formation. Unlike Vitamin A
Vitamin C 25 %
from fish and liver oil Beta-Carotene is Non-
Vitamin A 700%
toxic.
(as alpha- and beta-carotene)
Comments and Suggestions
Feel free to visit:
www.de_mufette.com.ph
For orders contact no._09295190321
NOTE: This packaging is only a sample
Back
Figure 8. Label used in the product
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
33
Evaluation Analysis and Distribution of Distinctive
Taste and Preferred Shape of the Carrot
Burger 101 and Carrot Burger102
Taste panelists were also asked to evaluate the taste as to distinct carrot taste,
meat taste, egg taste, and starchy/floury taste. On the distinctive taste of Carrot Burger
101, Half (50 %) of the panelist identified the distinct carrot taste, 30 % mentioned the
floury/starchy taste, 14 % said that meat taste is strong, and 6% of the evaluators said that
CB 101 is more on egg taste.
The taste panelist evaluated the Carrot Burger 102 from the collected data and
most (48 %) of the panelist mentioned that it is meat taste, 28 % tells that the
floury/starchy taste is strong, 16 % says that it is carrot taste, and few 8 % evaluators tells
that CB 102 is more on egg taste. The distribution of distinctive taste and preferred shape
of the two products are shown in Table 5.
Evaluators/taste panelists were also asked on the preferred shape of the burger
products. They were to choose between round and square shape. Results showed that
most (56 %) like round shape because it is the most common/popular shape while 44 %
preferred square because it is more attractive to eat when the four sides of the patty is
prominent.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
34
Table 5. Distribution of distinctive taste and preferred shape of CB 101 and CB 102
CRITERIA
CARROT BURGER 101
CARROT BURGER 102
F % F %
Taste Comparison
Meat Taste
7 14 24 48
Carrot Taste 25
50 8 16
Egg Taste 3 6 4 8
Starchy/Floury 15 30 14 28
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50 100 50 100
Preferred shape
Round 28 56 28 56
Square 22 44 22 44
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
35
General Acceptability of the Panelist
On Carrot Burger 101 and 102
Table 6 shows that most 38% panelist liked the CB 101 and 24% of the panelist
slightly like it. There were also 14 % who dislike the product, with 2% who slightly
dislike, and 14% who neither dislike nor like it. For Carrot Burger 102 more (48 %)
panelist answer that they like the product and 22% who extremely like more than the
Carrot Burger 101, with an 18% panelist slightly like, and there were only 12 % who
neither dislike nor like the product.
Table 6. General acceptability of the taste panelist on Carrot Burger 101 and 102
CRITERIA
CB 101
CB 102
______________________________________________
F
%
F
%
________________________________________________________________________
Extremely
Like
(7)
4
8 11
22
Like
(6) 19
38
24
48
Slightly
Like
(5)
12
24
9
18
Neither Like or Dislike (4)
7
14
6
12
Slightly Dislike (3)
1
2
-
-
Dislike
(2)
7
14
-
-
Extremely
Dislike
(1)
- -
-
-
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
36
Price Acceptability of CB 101 and 102 and
Suggested Price of the Taste Panelist
The Carrot Burger product is price based on its’ cost and computed at P26 /pack
plus 4 peso mark-up coming up with P30/pack as retail price. At the price of P30,
majority, (70%) of the panelist said it is affordable; however, 16 % are not willing to buy.
Thirty percent, 30% of the panelist said that it is not affordable, however 84% were
willing to buy at P30.00/pack price. There were also price suggested by the evaluators,
the price ranged from P20-P50/pack and some panelist suggested a lower price or higher
price as long as additional net content is added. Results are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Price acceptability of Carrot Burger 101 and 102 and suggested price of the
e evaluators / judges
PARTICULAR
CARROT BURGER 101 AND 102
______________________________________________________
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
Price
Affordable
35
70
Not
Affordable 15
30
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
50
100
________________________________________________________________________
Suggested Price
20
5
26.32
25
11
57.90
28.50
1
5.26
30
1
5.26
50
1
5.26
*Multiple response
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
37
Panelist Outlook on Carrot
Burger Products
Opinions of the evaluators/taste panelist were solicited why they like the product.
Appearance, aroma, taste, color, packaging and label, texture and over all assessment of
the product affects the acceptability of the product and being a customer they also need
and meet satisfaction on the product or service that they are paying. Thus, every comment
either positive or negative is necessary for the improvement of the product. On the part of
this product many outlooks were gathered. Results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Panelist opinion why do they like the product
OPINION
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
________________________________________________________________________
It is nutritious and good for
daily
consumption
7 15.22
Product introduced is from indigenous
source/vegetable
2 4.35
Taste like meat/beef so it can be a best
Substitute from this ingredients
8
17.39
Delicious and Good taste/ attractive
aroma /texture and spicy
12
26.09
Ingredients
are
natural
No
preservatives
added 5 11.41
Affordable and delicious than the product
they
sold
outside
5 10.87
Good
packaging
1
2.17
Healthy, No cholesterol/fat and
8
17.38
It can be used as a balanced diet
________________________________________________________________________
*Multiple response
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
38
Reasons Why Panelist Do Not
Like the Product
Not only the reasons, why the evaluators/taste-panelist like the product but also
the reasons why they do not like it were also solicited. Opinions were based on the over
all assessment of the two Carrot Burgers. In terms of taste, some do not like it because it
is starchy/floury, some panelist also differ in taste preference, like for example on the
ingredients, some would say they do not like the product if it is spicy but some also like if
the burger is spicy. The price is also one of the reasons why they do not like the product.
Results are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Panelist opinion why they do not like the product
OPINION
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
________________________________________________________________________
Palatability
is
floury/starchy
taste
4 14.29
Many
peppermint/Spicy
4 14.28
Too much oil used in cooking/Oily
2
7.14
Salty
3 10.14
Bad
taste/aroma/texture 6 21.43
Slightly
wet/soft
2
7.14
Higher price than the other products
2
7.14
Not
spicy
1
3.57
Aroma of onion and garlic is strong
Lot
of
seasoning
3 10.71
________________________________________________________________________
*Multiple response
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
39
Comments and Suggestions of the Panelist for the
Improvement of the Carrot Burger Product
Comments and suggestions for the improvement of the product were solicited
from the taste panelist. Results showed that the 2 products were acceptable and favorable
to the panelist. However, there were comments and suggestion on these two Carrot
burgers according to the evaluators, the product has a potential in the market because it
uses materials and ingredients that are nutritious, thus, it is healthy, moreover, it is
delicious and surely the kids will like it. This product is a good innovation by using
indigenous materials. More of their suggestions are seen in Table 10.
Table 10. Comments and suggestions of the panelist for the improvement of the Carrot
Burger product
SUGGESTIONS
AND
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
COMMENTS
(F)
(%)
Reduce the pepper because it
is not good for the kids
4
10.26
Improve the taste and texture by
adding
meat
3
7.69
Add garnishing so that the color can be attractive 2
5.13
Improve the labeling and the packaging
7
17.94
Improve your skills in cooking
1
2.56
Add
more
flavoring
(carrots)
3 7.68
Reduce salt (salty)
1
2.56
Indicate the expiration date in the label
2
5.13
________________________________________________________________________
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
40
Table 10. Continued…
SUGGESTIONS
AND FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
COMMENTS
(F)
(%)
Reduce the flour/starch because it is dominant
4
10.26
Taste
great/good
2 5.13
Aroma
is
weak 1 2.56
Have
equal
amount
of
spices
1 2.56
Thicker
slice
2 5.13
Oily, Reduce oil
3
7.69
Try
to
dehydrate
the
carrot
2 5.13
Try
to
steam
before
molding
1 2.56
*Multiple response
Competing Products of Carrot Burgers
Produced by the Researcher
Competing products of carrot burgers are of different sizes, amount and quantity
and price. There are five (5) competing products of Carrot burger as shown in Table 11.
Products from the other companies also use the same packaging as the Carrot burgers
produced by the researcher. The main ingredient by the competing products uses the
same ingredient, which is the beef. From the packaging Roel’s Food Corporation and
Pure Foods-Homel uses also Styrofoam before packing it with printed cellophane as its
label. Pure foods- Homel Company only uses Styrofoam in a ten (10) pieces net content
but for five (5) pieces net content it uses only printed cellophane as its packaging
including Mei foods Corporation. For the Pampanga’s best and Food sphere Inc., this two
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
41
company uses the same covered plastic cups as the packaging material on their product
and it is sealed on the opening, and labeled sticker is used which is stick on the cover.
Table 11. Competing products of carrot burgers produced by the researcher
MANUFACTURERS NET WT. SIZE PRICE QTY PRODUCT MARKET
(g)
NAME OUTLET
________________________________________________________________________
The Pure foods-Hormel 225g Big 34 5 Vida
Emmanuel
Company
Cheese burger Grocery
Nadeco Meifoods
Corporation
250g Small 28 7 Nadeco Roel’s and Mekeni
Hamburger outlet
Food Sphere Inc.
225g Big 37.75 5 cdo 456 Commercial
Ulam
Burger
Center
Pampanga’s best 450g Medium 69 10 Hamburger 456 Commercial
Patties
Center
Roel’s Food
480g Big 7 10 Roel’s 456 Commercial
Corporation
Hamburgers Center
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
42
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to find out the level of acceptability of Carrot Burger
product as to the color, texture, appearance, shape, aroma, taste, packaging and the
general acceptability to find out the consumers or potential consumers and the criteria/
factors affecting the acceptability of carrot burger.
There were 28 students, 23 were college and 5 were from high school, 13
cook/chef, 4 teachers and 5 burger stand seller/owner who served as the product
evaluators/taste-panelist in the product testing. Product testing is done through sensory
evaluation wherein the panelist evaluated the product as to appearance, taste, texture,
aroma, packaging, color and price.
Based on the results of the study, the level of acceptability of the students and
pupils is rated 5-7. It means that the product is acceptable in terms of appearance, texture,
aroma, and taste. Statistical analysis using t-test also shows that CB 101 and CB 102
were not significantly different in terms of color, shape, aroma, texture, taste, packaging
and appearance but as to the general acceptability, the 2 products CB 101 and CB 102 is
highly significant
Evaluators’ opinion including comments and suggestion from the two products
were also solicited, it includes the following: the product is good, meaty in taste, good
packaging but it needs improvement, ingredients like onion and pepper are to many for
kid’s preferences
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
43
Conclusions
From the result the following conclusion were drawn:
1. The level of acceptability of the taste panelist for the two (2) Carrot Burger
products was rated mostly from 5-7, which was slightly like, like and extremely
like.
2.
The panelists dislike the color, aroma and texture of Carrot Burger 101.
3.
The panelists dislike the texture and packaging of Carrot Burger 102.
4. The color, taste, packaging, size and price and most of all the mouth feel are the
factors influencing the acceptability of consumers on the product
5. The potential consumers of the CB product are the school children, adolescents,
young adult and also adult and the primary consumers are the burger stand
owner/seller and burger lovers who like fast food
6. The panelist like the 2 burgers (CB 101 and CB 102), but CB 102 is most liked.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
44
Recommendations
Being an entrepreneur or food processors who introduced a new product in the
market, strategies are considered like pricing, promotions, distribution, place /location are
important matters to study to have competitive products in the market. The two Carrot
Burger products that were evaluated is a good product to be marketed because it has
potential, and it is healthy and nutritious. However, further research and improvement of
the product and packaging should be done. Furthermore, to determine the market
acceptability, the burger should be market tested to the target market outlets. This study
should be guide in or basis for those who venture in innovation of food products. This
study is also useful for those who are going to establish a business like fast food,
specialized in vegetable burger.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
45
LITERATURE CITED
ANONYMOUS. 2007. Herbs 2000. Retrieved October 4, 2007 from
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs_carrot.htm
ANONYMOUS. 2007. Innovation. Wikipedia the Free Enctclopedia. Retrieved October
4, 2007 from http://en.wikipwdia.org/wiki/Innovation
ANONYMOUS. 2007. World carrot Museum. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from
http://www.carrot museum.co.uk/history.html.
ANONYMOUS. 2007. World Carrot Museum. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from
http://www.carrot museum.co.uk/history.html.
CROSS, H.R, H.F. Bernholdt, M.E. Dikleman, B.E. Greene W.G. Moody, Stages,
R.L. West. 1978. Guidelines for cookery and sensory evaluation of meat.
American Meat Science Association. Ad Hoc Committee. Chicago, U.S.A.
DAVE KAMIONER. 2003. The importance of marketing. Retrieved October 6, 2007
from http://www.dynamicnet.net/news/articles/importance of marketing.html
DEL ROSARIO, M. B. 2007. An Assessment on the Market Potential of Cacao Polvoron.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp.6 BS Thesis.
ELROD, John. 1978. Building the bridge between laboratory and consumer tests.
Paper presented ate the IFT Conference, Dallas, Texas, and June 4-6.
FAGERBERG et al. 2004. Innovation. Wikipedia the Free Enctclopedia. Retrieved
October 4, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation.
FAYE KINDER,N.R.GREEN, and N. HARRIS, 1984. Meal Management Sixth Edition.
New York Macmillan Publishing Company Pp.127-138.
GATCHALIAN, M. M. , 1989. Sensory Evaluation Methods for Quality
Assessment and Development. College of Home Economics University of the
Philippines, Diliman, Quezon, City Philippines.Pp227-228, 237.
GIRARDOT, N.F. 1952. Some requirements for consumer preference testing of foods,
Pp. 113-116. Chief Psychometrician. The Coca-Cola Co.
GORMAN, James. 1957. The taste puzzling perception. The senses. Aug. to Sept. p.6.
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
46
KLEMMER, E.T. 1968. Psychological principles of subjective evaluation.
Basic Principles of Sensory Evaluation, ASTMSTP 433, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Pp. 51-57.
KOHLS, R.L. and D.W. DOWNEY. 1972. Marketing of agricultural Products. New York
Mac Millan Publishing Co.p.15.
KRAMER, A. 1973. “Food and Consumer.” The Avi Publishing Co., Inc. Westport, Ct.
23 (7): 66.
MABESA L. B. 1986. Sensory Evaluation of Foods: Principles and Methods.
College of Agriculture University of the Philippines at Los Baňos College of
Laguna, CRDL Printing Press. P.1.
NABLE, A.C. 1975. Instrumental analysis of the sensory properties of food Technology
29 (12): 56.
PANGBORN, R.M. 1977. Sensory Science Approached and Applications in food
Research. Personal Communications.
WASSERMAN, A.E. 1981. IFT’s sensory evaluation guides – let’s use them. Food
Technol. 35 (11): 38.
WIKIPEDIA. 2007. Cultivated Vegetable. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot#Uses
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
47
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. General acceptability as to color, appearance, texture, shape, aroma
packaging and taste
CRITERIA
MEAN
t-value Probability Associated
__________________________________________________
CB 101 CB 102
Color
5.35 5.94
-0.1091ns
0.9149
Appearance
5.51 5.76
-0.0334 ns
0.9739
Packaging
5.75 5.22
0.0851 ns
0.9336
Aroma
5.13 5.62
-0.0429 ns
0.9665
Texture
5.29 5.80
-0.0935 ns
0.9270
Taste
5.44 5.92
-0.1172 ns
0.9086
Over- All
5.41 5.73
-2.0499 ns 0.957
Legend: ns-not
significant
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TREATMENT
SUMMARY OF SCORE
______________________________________________________
Mean Standard
deviation
Observations
1 (CB 101)
4.94
1.4902404
50
2 (CB 102)
5.8 **
.9258201**
50
TOTAL
5.37
1.3077469
100
One-way score trt [f weight = freq], tabulated nofreq
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
48
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
ANALYSIS
OF
VARIANCE
______________________________________________________
SS
df
MS
F
Prob>F
Between groups
18.49
1
18.49 12.01
0.0008
Within Groups 150.82
98
1.53897959
TOTAL
169.31
99
1.71020202
Bartlett’s test for equal variances: chi2 (1) = 10.5991 Prob > chi 2 = 0.001
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
49
APPENDIX A
EVALUATION SHEET FOR INNOVATED CARROT PATTY
Name of evaluator (Compulsory): __________________________________________
Name of School/Address: _________________________________________________
Are you employed? ( ) Yes ( ) No
Occupation?____________________________________________________________
Age:______ Sex: ( ) Male ( )Female Civil Status: ( ) Single ( ) Married
( ) Widower
Educational Attainment/level
( ) Elementary level ( ) High school level ( ) College Level
( ) Elementary graduate ( ) High school graduate ( ) College Graduate
Monthly Allowance/Income;
( )1000 and below ( ) 1000-3000 ( )3000-6000 ( )6000-1000 ( )1000 and above
SAMPLE 1
(Please answer it by checking)
CRITERIA
Extremely Like Slightly Neither Slightly Dislike Extremely
Like
Like
like or Dislike
Dislike
Dislike
COLOR
APPEARANCE
PACKAGING
AROMA
TEXTURE
TASTE
TASTE? ( ) Carrot Taste ( ) Meat Taste ( ) Egg Taste ( ) Starchy/Floury
SAMPLE 2
(Please answer it by checking)
CRITERIA
Extremely Like Slightly Neither Slightly Dislike Extremely
Like
Like
like or Dislike
Dislike
Dislike
COLOR
APPEARANCE
PACKAGING
AROMA
TEXTURE
TASTE
TASTE? ( ) Carrot Taste ( ) Meat Taste ( ) Egg Taste ( ) Starchy/Floury
PREFERED SHAPE: ( ) Round
( ) Square
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
50
Product Price: __P 30
( ) Willing to buy ( ) Not willing to buy
Price: ( ) Affordable ( ) Not Affordable
Suggested price: _________
GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY
-Please encircle your choice
CB 101
7
6
5
4
3
2 1
CB 102
7
6
5
4
3
2 1
Extremely Like Slightly Like Neither
Slightly Dislike Extremely
Like
Dislike Or Like Dislike Dislike
Figure 9. Typical “Smiley” scale
Why do you like the product? ______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Why you do not like the product? ____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Comment and Suggestions:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thank very much for your time. God Speed!
DEO F BALANGEN
Student Researcher
A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated Carrot Patty,
A Vegetable Based Product / Deo F. Balangen. 2008
Document Outline
- A Sensory Evaluation on the New Innovated
Carrot Patty, A Vegetable Based Product.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Rationale
- Statement of the Problem
- Objectives of the Study
- Importance of the Study
- Scope and Limitation of the Study
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- History of Carrot
- Nutritional Contents of Carrots
- Nutritional Contents and Uses of Carrots
- Product Innovation
- Nature of Consumers on Sensory Evaluation
- Sensory Evaluation
- Product Evaluation
- Consumer Acceptance
- Product Acceptability
- Definition of Terms
- METHODOLOGY
- Locale and Time of the Study
- Product Materials
- Product Preparation
- Judges/Evaluators
- Evaluator Recruitment
- Product Evaluation
- Data Analysis
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Carrot Patty Processing Process
- Distribution of Taste Panelist
- Profile of Evaluators/Taste Panelist
- Panelist on Carrot Burger 101
- Level of Acceptability of Evaluators/JudgesPanelist on Carrot Burger 102
- Evaluation Analysis and Distribution of DistinctiveTaste and Preferred Shape of the CarrotBurger 101 and Carrot Burger102
- General Acceptability of the PanelistOn Carrot Burger 101 and 102
- Price Acceptability of CB 101 and 102 andSuggested Price of the Taste Panelist
- Panelist Outlook on CarrotBurger Products
- Reasons Why Panelist Do NotLike the Product
- Comments and Suggestions of the Panelist for theImprovement of the Carrot Burger Product
- Competing Products of Carrot BurgersProduced by the Researcher
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Summary
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES