BIBLIOGRAPHY DE GUZMAN, JAMES A. MARCH...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DE GUZMAN, JAMES A. MARCH 2008. Sensory Evaluation of Fish Patties in
La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Evangeline Cungihan, MSc
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted in La Trinidad, Benguet to determine the acceptability
of panelist/ consumers on the two formulation of fish patty product in terms of taste,
texture, aroma, appearance, and their general acceptability to the product, including its
packaging and price. Product Formulation A contains 70% fish tuna and 30% other
ingredients while product Formulation B contains 50% fish tuna and 50% other
ingredients and spices; this was done through sensory evaluation by 50 respondents.
After the sensory evaluation, a market testing was conducted to find the market
potential of the product most accepted by the evaluators.
The findings revealed that the two product formulations did not differ
significantly in terms of taste, texture, aroma, appearance, and general acceptability. The
price that is acceptable and affordable by the consumers was P5 per piece or P55 per
pack. The packaging most accepted by the consumers was the Packaging A.
The findings also revealed that there were repeated orders from the customers
who bought the product. Majority said that they would buy the product once a week if the
price is P55 but only a few would continue to buy the product on a weekly basis if the
price will increase to P60.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………….…………… i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………… i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………. ii
INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the Study …………………………………………………... …… 1
Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………... 2
Objectives of the study …………………………………………………………...3
Importance of the study …………………………………………………………..3
Scope and Limitation ……………………………………………………………. 4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sensory evaluation ………………………………………………………………. 5
Perception
……………………………………………………………………….. 8
Consumer Testing ……………………………………………………………….. 9
Acceptability
………………………………………………………………......... 9
Factors to Consider during Sensory Evaluation ………………………….…….. 10
New product ……………………………………………………………… … . 10
Sensory Attribute of Food ……………………………………………….. 11
The Marketer ……………………………………………………………… 11
Market Testing ……………………………………………………………. 12
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………. 12
ii
METHODOLOGY
Locale and time of the study ……………………………………………… 14
Respondents of the Study …………………………………………………. 14
Data Collection ……………………………………………………………. 14
Data to be gathered…………………………………………..…………….. 15
Data analysis ……………………………………………………………..... 15
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Product Description ……………………………………………………….. 16
Age and Types of Respondents …………………………………………… 16
Sensory Evaluation of fish patties …………………………………………. 17
Acceptability as to Taste Evaluation ……………………………………….. 17
Acceptability as to Appearance Evaluation ………….…………………….. 19
Acceptability as to Aroma Evaluation …..………………………………….. 21
Acceptability as to Texture Evaluation ……………………………………... 22
General Acceptability of the Two Formulations …………………………... 24
Panels Acceptability as to the Packaging of the Product ………………….. 25
Panels Ratings on the Given Sample Price ………………………………… 27
Market Testing of the Product ………………………………………….……….28
Target Market Acceptability as to the Market Price …………………………… 28
Consumers Mode of Buying the Product ………………………………………. 29
Acceptability of the Improved Packaging of the Product…..…………….. ….. 30
Consumers Willingness to Repeat the Order …………………………….. ….. 32
iii
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary …………………………………………………………………. 33
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 36
Recommendation …………………………………………………………. 36
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………… 38
APPENDIX
Sensory Evaluation Sheet ………………………………………………… 40
Market Testing Data Sheet ……………………………………………….. 42
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS COMPUTATION…………………………………. 44
iv
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Product evaluation is one useful tool for quality control. Products generally are
evaluated when new recipe is being tested. However product evaluation should be
continuing process to make as certain that the original high quality is maintained if not
improved the responsibility for this important part of quality control should be assigned
to a person or committee, but staff, employees and consumers often participate. Many
large food services and most commissaries have facilities for product development and
laboratories for product evaluation Hargar, et al, (1988) as cited by (Lumadew, 2007).
Consumers’ acceptability is the key major factor to a successful new or innovative
new product. Their taste and preferences including their purchasing power will help to
determine the quality of the product to be produce. But the most critical factor is the
market, the deciding factor in production Anderson (2006) as cited by (Dulawen, 2007).
Arazi and Kilcast, (2001) mentioned that without sensory evaluation or analysis,
there is a high risk in market failure. Where sensory analysis was too frequently often
overlooked as a requirement before product launch and introduced to the market, in order
to suit the satisfaction of the consumers.
Production of new products which are healthy and nutritious is now the concern
of food producers and processors, because consumers are now becoming health conscious
(Ananayo, 2007). Some also look into new product in the market, prefer ready to cook or
eat food and fast food.
2
Fish patty is considered a new product which does not exist yet in the food
market. It is out of fish tuna (yellow fin tuna) and with other raw ingredients and spices.
There are eight species of tuna and all of these are found and produce also in the
Philippines. Yellow fin or “Thunnus albacares” in Latin word, which is the second tuna
species in term of volume and popularity. They are found between 45oN and 40oS. They
cover enormous distances around the globe, and all stocks mingle. Tuna fish are truly a
nutrient- dense food. An excellent source of high quality protein, tuna are rich in a variety
of important nutrients including the minerals selenium, magnesium, and potassium; the
vitamins niacin, B1 and B6; and perhaps most important, the beneficial omega-3 essential
fatty acids are so named because they are essential for our health but cannot be made by
the body; they therefore be obtained from foods (George Mateljan Foundation, 2001-
2007)
Since fish patty is new and not known by the consumers this study was done to
find out what consumer say about the product. The “sensory evaluation of fish patty”
aims to meet the appropriate formulation that could meet the desire of the consumers.
Statement of the Problem
The study intends to answer the following questions:
1. What fish patty formulation is most accepted by the consumers/ panelist in term
of taste, texture, aroma and appearance including and the general acceptability?
2. What is the level of consumers acceptability of fish patty base on their sensory
evaluation?
3. What is the market potential of fish patty?
3
Hypothesis
1. The fish patty product most accepted between the two formulations as to the taste,
texture, and appearance and the general acceptability were formulation B, based
on higher percentages of ratings. Except for the acceptability of aroma which
formulation A is most preferred by the panelist.
2. The level of acceptability based on their sensory evaluation has no significant
differences. This means the both formulations were almost the same in terms of
taste, appearance, texture, aroma and the general acceptability.
Objectives of the Study
The study aimed to:
1. determine the fish patty formulation most acceptable to the consumers/ panelist
in term of taste, texture, aroma and appearance,
2. determine the level of consumers’ acceptability on sensory of the fish patty, and
3. determine the market potential of the accepted fish patty formulation.
Importance of the Study
The result of the study would help the processor to improve the product to suit the
satisfaction of the consumers. This study would be useful to students who would be
conducting similar studies in the future. It could also be a basis for further researched to
improve the product quality.
4
Scope and Limitation
This study was conducted in La Trinidad, Benguet where data is gathered. The
study is focused in determining the acceptability of different formulations of fish patty
products using hedonic scale based on sensory evaluation, the level of consumers’
acceptability and market testing was done only in three locations in La Trinidad because
of time and financial constraints.
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sensory Evaluation
The Institute of Food Technology (IFT) Sensory Evaluation Division U.S.A.
defines sensory evaluation as “a specific discipline used to evoked , measure, analyze and
interpret sensations as they are perceived by the senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and
hearing” (Gatchalian, M., 1989).
As stated by Mabesa, L. B., (1986), it is a procedure that is used quite often in
food science and technology because such sensory characteristics of food products as
flavor (odor and taste), color and texture are closely involved with consumer appreciation
and acceptance. She cited also that it is no more an art which can be done only by few
experts. It has become a science that can be taught in a very systematic way.
According to Watts B., Ylimaki, G., Jeffrey, L., Elias, L., (1989), sensory analysis
is a multidisciplinary science of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing to measure the
sensory characteristics and acceptability of food products, as well as many other
materials. There is no one instrument that can replicate or replace the human response,
making sensory evaluation component of any food study is essential. Sensory analysis is
applicable to a variety of areas such as product development, product improvement,
quality control, storage studies and process development.
Sensory evaluation is the science of judging and evaluating the quality of the food
by the use of senses i.e. taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing. Sensory testing has been
developed into a precise, formal, structured methodology that is continually being
updated to refine existing techniques. Sensory evaluation is divided into methods,
6
subjective and objective testing. Subjective test involves objective panelist while
objective testing employs the use of lab instrument with no involvement of the senses.
Both tests are essential in sensory evaluation and necessary in a variety of condition
(Oregon State University., 1998).
Reidy, E.J., (n.d), stated that sensory evaluation is a scientific discipline use to
evoke measure, analyze and interpret reactions to the characteristics of foods and
materials as they are perceived by the senses. Humans are used in much the same way a
scientist might use a gas chromatograph. It is the conscious effort to identify and judge
different sensations and components in an object, be it a piece of food, a beverage, or a
perfume. Sensory evaluation encompasses all of the senses. It takes into account several
different disciplines but emphasizes the behavioural basis of perception. It involves the
measurement and evaluation of sensory properties of food and other materials. Human
judges are used to measure the flavor or sensory characteristics of food. In short, sensory
evaluation is a very "Gestalt" approach to product assessment.
Sensory evaluation has had a long and active relationship with the food industry.
Most of the earliest work on methods development and applications was supported by the
industry, which came to appreciate the relationship between a product's sensory
characteristics and market success. Over the past three decades sensory professionals
made considerable strides in achieving acceptance from its scientific peers. A variety of
misconceptions and myths about sensory evaluation had to be challenged; including, for
example, the traumas of organolepsis and triangulation (both diseases of the mind) and
the tyranny of experts (tongue, nose, etc.) stating what to perceive, what to call the
perceptions, and what the consumer would like. With increased acceptance by their peers,
7
sensory professionals were able to participate in the product decision making process, as
well as provide procedures for marketing and quality oriented tests. In more recent years,
however, these gains have become in danger of being lost with the re-emergence of
experts; the proposition that people can be trained to be invariant; sameness testing a
curious but flawed concept that posits that products not perceived as different must be the
same, as if products ever are the same; universal scales; and the use of statistical
terrorism; e.g., using complex algorithms as a substitute for a well organized and fielded
test. (Stone, H., 2006). He further explained that it is a science that measures, analyzes,
and interprets the reactions of the senses of sight, smell, sound, taste, and texture (or
kinesthesis) to products. It is a people science; i.e., people are essential to obtain
information about products. With that product information in hand, business decisions are
made often with major economic impact. This people testing process may seem simple
enough; however, there are numerous ways by which one goes about deciding who in the
population will participate, how they will be tested, and what kinds of questions will be
asked. Much research has been done to understand consumer behavior and there is no
doubt much more will be done before we have a better understanding of consumer choice
behavior. In this work, one regularly encounters myths about consumer behavior that
defy established knowledge about the anatomy and physiology of the senses and
observed response behavior. One of these myths is the proposition that consumers can be
trained to be invariant. Subjects providing the same response each time a specific
stimulus is presented is used as evidence of the validity of this approach, where as it is
confusing reliability with validity and using a form of behavior modification to fool us
8
into thinking that individuals trained to provide the same response to a stimulus is
realistic response behavior (Stone, H., 2006)
This information is obtained by asking specific questions about a person’s age,
sex, geographic location, nationality, religion, education and employment along with
their preferences on the product being tested. To put it more simply, it stereotypes user
groups based on these variables and learns the preferences of particular groups' eating
habits. Of course this is not done because of prejudicial motivation, but simply because
consumer preferences tend to be very grouped based on such factors listed above. This
type of testing is a very accurate tool in understanding consumer preferences (Bopp, P.
1997).
Perception
Paredes, H. (2007) cited that personality is internal in which both experiment and
behavior related in an orderly way. Uniqueness arises from heredity and our experiences.
And perception receives information through the senses: sight, taste and hearing. Inputs
information is the sensation received through the sense organs. When we hear
advertisement, see friend and taste a product.
According to, Gould, J., (1990- 2003) sensation precedes perception and is the
process whereby our sensory receptors receive, transduce, and code stimulus information
into electrochemical impulses in our nervous system; it is the initial, relatively simple
process of detecting individual stimuli. Where perception is the subsequent selection,
organization, and interpretation of sensory input, it is the process of obtaining
information about both the external and internal environments, which results, via
9
integration utilizing memory, in the conscious experience, recognition, and interpretation
of objects, object relationships, and events.
Consumer Testing
Consumer testing is a tool used to try to answer questions about the success of a
new product. Although there are many different types of consumer tests, the Affective
Test is the most popular for basic consumer testing of food. Affective tests, when done
properly. Allow different treatments to be judged to find the optimum accepted product.
In addition, other Break the masses of consumers down into smaller groups to allow an
understanding of who will assess the market share potential for the new product (Bopp,
P.A., 1997).
Acceptability
O’Mahony, M., (1995), stated that food acceptability is often referred to as liking,
preference, enjoyment, selection and consumption of a food or drink or food quality.
Food acceptability represents different forms of behavior to food products. It is therefore
vital that the objective of any Consumer study is clearly defined in advance and the
experimental design and questionnaires are carefully designed. For example, "How much
do you like" is not the same as "how much do you eat" because consumption is
influenced by price, availability, whether the consumer is on a diet etc.The selection and
choice of food by an individual are determined by factors resulting from both the food
product and the individual.
10
Factors to Consider during Sensory Evaluation
Design of experiments, these is where experimental error that have possibility in
all experimental work. Error and bias during sensory testing can be minimized through
the use of techniques such as of that randomization. Replications also increase the
precision of the experiment. She added randomization does two things; it prevents an
overlooked effect from becoming identified with an experimental factor, and it ensures
that any small overlooked effect is impartially distributed among the comparisons used to
judge the methods. Food samples should be evaluated at a temperature at which they are
normally consumed (Mabesa, 1986).
New Product
A product is something that is viewed as capable of satisfying a want. A want is
described as state of felt deprivation in a person. This deprivation produces discomfort.
The want energizes the person and puts him into an active state- and gives him direction.
The person will perceive certain things outside of himself that would satisfy his wants.
And maybe this things/want can be could a product (Kotler, P., 1976). He also mentioned
that product is anything that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use, or
consumption that might satisfy a need or a want (Kotler, 1989).
Stanton, W., (1977), categorizes new product as a) product which are really
innovative- truly unique- products which there is a real need but for which there are no
existing substitute generally considered satisfactory, b) adaptive replacements of existing
products involving a significant differentiation in the existing article, c) Imitative
11
products which are new to your company but not new to the market. Your firm simply
wants to enter that existing market with essentially a “me too” product.
Sensory Attributes of Food
Sensory attributes of food are detected by all our senses as is illustrated
in the following diagram.
Fig. 1.Types of Stimuli
The Marketer
The marketer must determine if a) there is a need for a product or services; b)
those with a need are interested in buying the product or services; c) these consumers
have enough money; and d) those with enough money are willing to spend it on the
product or services (Kinnear and Benrhardt, 1986).
12
Market Testing
Market is an open frontier, full of hopes and expectations for new business,
products and services. It can be a dangerous place for someone who has never
experienced the excitement and possible pit- falls of commerce. Thousands of inventors
test their product on the market every year, only to find the journey too treacherous. To
truly become product- smart, the inventor must test the market. Testing the market is to
understand customers, pricing, barriers to entry, and competitors gives the inventor a
better shot at making their trip market a success, Anonymous (2006) as cited by
(Lumadew, 2007).
Definition of terms
Acceptability- is referred to as liking, preference, enjoyment, selection and
consumption of a quality food.
Consumer testing- tool used to try to answer questions about the success of a new
product or through market testing.
Marketer- one who is selling or supplying a product to the market
Market testing- is testing the target market or consumers and promoting a new
product whether it is acceptable to the market.
New product- is an innovative product that is new to the market that capable for
satisfying a want.
Perception- it is a perceive stimuli (thoughts, idea, reaction and awareness) of
consumer in the acceptability of a product.
13
Sensory evaluation- is a tool used to evaluate quality of food or a certain new
product by the use of our senses i.e. taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing.
.
14
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
Sensory evaluation of different formulation of fish patty was conducted at La
Trinidad, Benguet. This was done last December, 2007 to January, 2008. For sensory
evaluation it was conducted in three locations only; one Poblacion La Trinidad Benguet,
Km. 5 Public Market and Benguet State University Campus. The market testing of the
chosen product formulation was conducted also in the same locations where sensory
evaluations were done.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the residents of La Trinidad, Benguet,
specifically high school and college students, faculty/ employees and other consumers.
The panelist or product evaluators were determined as to their age and profession. For
sensory evaluation of different formulations panelist were composed of 20 panelists from
Poblacion, La Trinidad, 20 panelist from Benguet State University campus, and 10
panelists from Km. 5 Public Market these panelists or evaluator were chosen randomly.
For the market testing, the same locations were chosen for testing the market
acceptability of the product.
Data Collection
Scorecard or evaluation sheet was prepared as a tool in gathering the data for
sensory evaluation the panelists were given samples of the different formulations and
15
made a taste test and rate the products based on their sensory perception. The accepted
formulation was tested in the market with the used of market testing data sheet.
Data Gathered
The data gathered included the following; primary: a) Consumers acceptability as
to their sensory evaluation on fish patty, b) the level of acceptability on different product
formulation, secondary: c) and market potential of fish patty.
Data Analysis
All the data collected were tabulated and presented using frequency counts,
percentages and mean. The relationship on the level of acceptability of the
different formulation was analyzed using T- test. Repeated orders were used to
determine the market potential of the chosen product formulation.
16
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Product Description
There were two product compositions of fish patties that were developed. These
are the “formulation A” which composed of 70% of fish tuna and 30% other ingredients
and spices, and “formulation B” which composed of 50% fish tuna and 50% other
ingredients.
Age and Types of Respondents
There were 50 respondents who evaluated the product formulations and they are
determined as to their age and what types of consumers; this are the students and non-
students. Results showed from (Table 1) that most (48%) of the panelist who evaluated
the product belonged to the age range from 13- 24 years old. This is followed by 26%
which is 25-37 years old, twenty percent belonged to 38- 49 years old and 6% of the
panelist were 50 years old and above.
Evaluators/ panelist were determined also classified into students and non-
students (Table 1) presents that (48%) of the evaluators were high school and colleges
students and 52% were non- students. These included school employees, house wives and
other consumers.
17
Table 1. Age and types of product evaluators/ panelists
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
(F)
(%)
a. Age
13- 24
24
48
25- 37
13
26
38-
49
10
20
50- Above
3
6
TOTAL 50 100
b. Types of consumers
Students (College and High
24
48
School)
Non- Students (Employees, 26
52
House wives, and
Other consumers)
TOTAL 50 100
Sensory Evaluation of Fish Patties
Sensory evaluation was done to evaluate the acceptability of the two product
formulation based on taste, appearance, aroma, texture, including its general
acceptability, price affordability and the packaging of the product.
Acceptability as to Taste Evaluation
Taste was evaluated according to the good composition or combinations of the
product formulation, result showed (Table 2) that most (30%) of the respondents
indicated that they like the formulation A very much. There were 28% who mentioned
that they extremely like the product formulation while 26% said that they like
moderately, and 12% said they like slightly and one respondent each mentioned neither
like nor dislike and dislike slightly the formulation A.
18
For product formulation B, 20% of the respondents mentioned they extremely
like the product, 42% like very much, 30% like moderately and only 8% like slightly.
None of the respondents mentioned neither like nor dislike the formulation. Most of the
panelist also said that the taste of both formulations were delicious and taste good.
The computed mean for product formulation A was 2.36 which are interpreted as
like very much and for product formulation B was 2.26 and the same as like very much
by the panelist in term of taste. Statistical analysis using T- test showed that there is no
significant differences in the taste of the two product formulations. This implies therefore
that the two product formulations have the same taste according to the evaluation of the
panelist. Thus the null hypothesis that acceptability of taste between the two formulations
has no significant differences is accepted.
Table 2. Panelist rating on the taste of the two formulations/ compositions of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 14 28 10 20
2. Like very much 15 30 21 42
3. Like moderately 13 26 15 30
4. Like slightly 6 12 4 8
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 - -
6. Dislike slightly 1 2 - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.36 2.26
Rating Scale
0.23 (ns)
1- Extremely Like
9- Dislike Extremely
ns- No significant
19
Acceptability as to Appearance Evaluation
Acceptability of the appearance was referred to the size, shape and color of the
product (Figure 2). Both formulations have the same shape and size. Both are round
shape and weighed for 27.5 gms. per piece patty, the only difference is there colors.
“Formulation A” have a darker or brownish color, while “Formulation B” have a lighter
or light brown and dotted with green particles (green leaves of chives) or appeared like a
veggie patty.
In terms of color indicator, (Table 3) shows that 14% of the panelist rated
Formulation A as extremely like, 40% as like very much, 34% like moderately and 10%
as like slightly. No one among the panelist who evaluates the formula as neither like nor
dislike.
Formulation B was evaluated by 14% of the panelist as like extremely, most
(44%) said that they like very much, 30% rated like moderately, 12% also said that they
like slightly the formulation and no one rated as dislike slightly.
The computed mean of the two formulations was 2.46 for formulation A which is
interpreted as like very much while 2.4 for formulation B and interpreted also as like
very much by the panelist. Statistical analysis using T- test on the level of acceptability
showed that both appearances of the two formulations have no significant differences.
Thus the null hypothesis that the acceptability of the two formulations as to the
appearance has no significant difference is accepted.
20
Table 3. Panel rating on the appearance of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 7 14 7 14
2. Like very much 20 40 22 44
3. Like moderately 17 34 15 30
4. Like slightly 5 10 6 12
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 - -
6. Dislike slightly - - - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.46 2.4
Rating Scale
0.11 (ns)
Fig. 2. Samples of the two formulations
21
Acceptability as to Aroma Evaluation
The acceptability of aroma for formulation A result showed that extremely like
was evaluated by 18% of the panelist, while 44% said that they like very much , 26% also
evaluated as like moderately, 10% as like slightly, and one respondent (2%) said neither
like nor dislike the aroma of the formulation.
The evaluation for formulation B, showed that 10% of the panelist evaluated the
aroma as extremely like, 36% as like very much and most (40%) said that they like
moderately. Some (8%) respondents rated the formulation as like slightly and 4% said
that they neither like nor dislike the formulation (Table 4). The result obviously shows
that most of the panelist preferred the aroma of formulation A, may be because of the
higher percentages of fish tuna composition.
The computed mean for formulation A was 2.34 which is interpreted as like very
much and 2.36 was computed for formulation B and interpreted also as like very much by
the panelist. Statistical analysis showed that there is no significant difference on the
aroma. Thus the null hypothesis that the acceptability of panelist in terms of aroma has
no significant differences is accepted.
22
Table 4. Panel rating on the aroma of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 9 18 5 10
2. Like very much 22 44 19 38
3. Like moderately 13 26 20 40
4. Like slightly 5 10 4 8
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 2 4
6. Dislike slightly - - - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.34 2.36
Rating Scale
0.02 (ns)
Acceptability as to Texture Evaluation
Texture of the product refers to the fineness and tenderness of the two
formulations as to the mouth feel of the panelist. Formulation A results showed that most
(34%) of the panelist like very much the texture, followed by like moderately as
evaluated by 30% of the respondents and 22% as extremely like the formulation.
However, 12% of the respondents said that they like slightly and one respondent (2%)
evaluated as neither like nor dislike the texture.
For formulation B, most (38%) of the panelist evaluated the formulation as like
very much, 32% as like moderately, and 18% said that they extremely like the
23
formulation. Some of the panelist (6%) evaluated as like slightly, 4% neither like nor
dislike and one respondent (2%) dislike slightly the texture of the formulation.
The mean ratings for the two formulations as to texture was 2.38 for formulation
A and 2.46 for formulation B and both formulations were interpreted as like very much
by the panelist. Statistical analysis using T- test showed no significant differences
between the two means. This implies that both product formulations are similar in
texture. Thus the null hypothesis that acceptability between the two formulations as to the
texture has no significant difference is accepted.
Table 5. Panel rating on the texture of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 11 22 9 18
2. Like very much 17 34 19 38
3. Like moderately 15 30 16 32
4. Like slightly 6 12 3 6
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 2 4
6. Dislike slightly - - 1 2
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.38 2.46
Rating Scale
0.14 (ns)
24
General Acceptability Evaluation of the Two Formulations
The criteria in judging general acceptability was based on the general perception /
rating of the evaluators as to the taste, appearance, texture, aroma and including the
packaging of the product. Comparing the two formulations, result showed (Table 6) for
formulation A that 42% of the panelist like very much the formulation, followed by like
moderately as evaluated by 30% evaluators, 18% evaluators responded as extremely like
and 8% said that they like slightly, while one of the respondents said neither like nor this
like the formulation.
For formulation B, most (50%) of the respondents said they like very much the
product, 22% said that they like moderately, and the same with formulation A that 18%
of the panelist rated as extremely like the formulation and only 4% evaluated as like
slightly while one (2%) of the respondent rated as dislike very much.
The computed mean of the two formulations was, 2.34 for formulation A and 2.36
for formulation B and both formulations were interpreted as like very much by the
respondents. Statistical analysis using T- test showed that the level of acceptability
between the two formulations has no significant differences. Thus null hypothesis that
acceptability between the two formulations as to general acceptability has no significant
differences is accepted.
25
Table 6. Panel rating on the general acceptability of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 9 18 9 18
2. Like very much 21 42 25 50
3. Like moderately 15 30 11 22
4. Like slightly 4 8 2 4
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 - -
6. Dislike slightly - - - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - 1 2
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.34 2.36
Rating Scale
0.01 (ns)
Panel/ Evaluators Acceptability as to the Packaging of the Product.
Panelists were given two types or sample of packaging that was used in rating the
product (figure 3). The evaluators were also asked to suggest some types of packaging
materials which they think is appropriate for the product. The two samples of packaging
are “Packaging A”, the medium used was 4.5” x 6.5” styrofoam noodle box and
“Packaging B” was used of 4” x 4” styrofoam spaghetti box. Results shows that
“Packaging A” is most preferred by 74% of the panelist followed by “Packaging B” was
least preferred by 18% of the panelist. As shown in Table 7, 4% of the panelist suggested
plane plastic and some panelist (4%) preferred Styrofoam cup as a medium to be used as
packaging material of the product.
26
Most of the panelist gave their comments on the packaging of the product
especially on the labelling, complete information of nutrition facts, ingredients, used of
the product and its life span. They further suggested that the label should not cover the
product.
Table 7. Panels rating on the acceptability of packaging
SAMPLE PACKAGING LEVEL OF ACCEPTABILITY
AND SUGGESTIONS
__________________________________________
F %
________________________________________________________________________
Packaging A 37 74
Packaging B 9 18
________________________________________________________________________
Suggestions:
a) Plane plastic 2 4
b) Styrofone cup 2 4
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 50 100
Figure 3. Sample packaging of the product
27
Panelist Rating on the Given Sample Price
Product price were evaluated in order to measure the acceptability and
affordability by the consumers. The given sample price of the product was P5 per piece
or P50 per pack. The acceptability of the panelist was shown in Table 8. Most (96%) of
the respondents evaluated the product price per piece as affordable, while 4% said that it
is not affordable. The P50 per pack was affordable to 92% of the panelist. There were 8%
who said that the product price is not affordable.
The panelists were also asked to suggest price that are affordable to them. This
information was used to find out the affordability of the product in the market. Table 8
present that 4% of the panelist suggested P6 per piece, while some (2%) suggested P7 per
piece as affordable. The finding shows that P5 per piece or P50 per pack is affordable to
the consumers.
Table 8. Sample price during sensory evaluation
PARTICULAR PERCENTAGES OF PRICE ACCEPTABILITY
___________________________________________________
Affordable
Not Affordable
F % F %
a) Price per piece and per pack
P5 per piece 48 96 2 4
P50 per pack 46 92 4 8
b) SUGGESTED PRICE PERCENTAGES
PER PIECE
F %
P6 2 4
P7 1 2
28
Market Testing/ Acceptability of the Product
(Chosen Formulation)
Market testing was done to measure the acceptability of the product to the target
market or consumers as to the price of the product per packed, improved packaging, the
willingness to repeat the order, and what specific consumers could buy and afford the
product, based on retailer and marketer observations.
Product acceptability was done in specific locations at La Trinidad, Benguet, and
where sensory evaluation was done. There were 16 consumers/buyers who evaluated the
product, 1 stall was supplied at Km. 5 (Public Market), and the marketer also does
individual selling to 10 consumers at Km6, Benguet State University and 5 house hold
consumers at Poblacion La Trinidad, Benguet. The product formulation tested in the
market was that of “Formulation B” (50%: 50%), which is most preferred by the product
evaluators.
Target market acceptability as to the market price. Target consumers were given a
situation on price increase, in which if the price was P55 in the market, and if the price
increases to P58 and P60. Result shows (Table 9) that if the price is P55 in the market
68.75% of the consumers rated the product price as affordable while 31.25% said that it
is not affordable. But if the price will increases to P58, most (62.5%) of the consumers
said that the product is not affordable, the same if the price increases to P60, 81.25% of
the consumers rated the product price as not affordable. This findings implies that if the
price of the fish patty will increase a little, majority of the consumers would not be able
to afford it.
29
Table 9. Consumers rating on the acceptability of different prices
PRICES PERCENTAGE OF PRICE ACCEPTABILITY
______________________________________________________
Affordable
Not affordable
_______________________________________________________
F % F %
________________________________________________________________________
P55 11 68.75 5 31.25
P58 6 37.5 10 62.5
P60 3 18.75 13 81.25
Consumers behavior in buying the product. Consumers behavior as to how often
they buy the product incase it is available in the market including the quantity that they
will buy was analyzed. There were sixteen (16) regular buyers who were asked about the
affordability of the product. Eleven or 68.75% said that P55 per pack is affordable and
31.25 said it is not affordable and 62.5% said it is not affordable when the price was
raised to P60 per pack, the number of respondents who said the price is affordable
decreased to only 18.75%.
The respondents were further asked how often they will buy the product
per week and the quantity they will buy when the price is P55, P58 and P60. The result
shows that if the price is P55, majority (68.75) of the respondents would buy once a week
at most two packs. One of the respondents would buy 2 packs twice a week if the price is
P55.
30
When the price was increased to P58 per pack, only 7 respondents would buy
once a week. Majority of them would buy only one pack. One of the respondents would
still buy twice a week but the quantity would decrease from 2 packs to one pack.
When the price was further increased to P60, the number of the respondents
willing to buy the product further decrease to only five (5). Further more, the respondents
who would buy twice a week reduced to only once a week. This finding shows that the
P60 per pack is not affordable to many of the consumers.
Table 10. Frequency and volume purchase at different set of prices
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
(F)
(%)
a) How often to buy and how many pack/s to buy?
P55:
Once a week
11
68.75
1
pck
3
18.75
2
pcks
3
18.75
Twice
a
week
1
6.25
2pcks
1
6.25
(Others:)
Twice a month
1
6.25
2
pcks
1
6.25
P58:
Once
a
week
7
43.75
1pck
6
37.50
2
pcks
1
6.25
Twice
a
week
1
6.25
31
Table 10 continued…
________________________________________________________________________
P60:
Once
a
week
5
31.25
1pck
3
18.75
2pcks
1
6.25
Target market acceptability as to the improved packaging of the product.
Improved packaging refers to the attractiveness and labelling acceptability of the
consumers. Packaging was shown in Figure 4. Materials used were 4.5” x 6.5” styrofoam
noodle box and 3.5” x 3.5” plastic in between each patty and the product was covered
with a cling wrapper. Packaging also includes product labelling and product information
as to shelf- life.
The result shows that 75% of the consumers accepted the product packaging. One
or (6.25%) each suggested the use of indigenous materials such as (banana leaves), and
plastic container (Table 11). Result implies that consumers accepted the packaging
material however more improvements were suggested for safety purposes of the product.
32
Table 11. Consumers acceptability of the improved product packaging
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
Acceptable 12 75
Not Acceptable 2 12.5
Suggestions:
Indigenous materials
1
6.25
Plastic container
1
6.25
TOTAL
16
100
Fig. 4. Sample of the improved packaging
Consumers willingness to repeat the order. Consumers willingness to repeat the
order was based on the observations of the marketer. According to the marketer, many
consumers like the product and are willing to repeat the order however; most of them are
price conscious. Most who repeated the order are those who have jobs or being
33
employed, and those who have knowledge on the benefits they got from the product.
These were the consumers who are health conscious. Although students like the product
but their affordability to buy the product is low. Almost 50% of the consumers repeated
the order with the price of P50 and P55, while others do not repeat the order because they
either did not like the product, want to see more improvement on the product or can not
afford the price.
34
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of fish patty by target
consumers based on the characteristics of the product. Thus, this study aimed to
determine what fish patties product formulation is the most acceptable to the consumers/
panelist, determine the level of consumers acceptability on the different formulation of
fish patties, and to determine the market potential of the most preferred formulation by
the panelist.
Two formulations were developed and used for sensory evaluation by doing taste
test. Formulations were composed of a) 70% fish tuna and 30% other ingredients and
spices, b) 50% fish tuna and 50% other ingredients and spices. The panelist/ evaluators
were selected through random sampling. Evaluators were classified as students and non-
students. Product testing was done only in three locations at the La Trinidad, Benguet;
Km5 public Market, Benguet State University campus, and at Poblacion (San Jose high
school) la Trinidad, Benguet because of time and financial constraints. There were 50
respondents who evaluated the product.
Both formulations were rated by the panelist as to the taste, aroma, texture,
appearance, general acceptability including the size and packaging of the product. Results
showed that “Formulation B” is the most preferred by evaluators/ panelists. Except for
the aroma which is 44% of the panelist was preferred “Formulation A” and rated as like
very much. While formulation B was rated as like moderately by 40% of the panelist/
evaluators. Statistical analysis shows that the level of acceptability of the two product
35
formulations as to the taste, aroma, texture, appearance and the general acceptability did
not significantly. Thus the null hypothesis that acceptability between the two
formulations as to the taste, aroma, texture, appearance, and the general acceptability of
the product has no significant differences is accepted. As to the packaging material of the
product, the most preferred by the 74% of the panelists was that of “Packaging A”
(Figure 3). The medium used was 4” x 6” spaghetti box styrofoam covered with
cellophane.
Market testing was conducted in the same locations, Km5 (public Market),
Benguet State University campus and at Poblacion (San Jose high school) la Trinidad,
Benguet. The formulation being tested in the market was the most preferred by the
panelist which was the “Formulation B” composition. Results shows that most of the
consumers like the product, and most of them said that the taste was good, it’s a healthy
product and delicious.
Acceptability as to the improved packaging were accepted by 75% of the target
market, but most of the consumers comments was to improved more on the nutritional
facts or show the nutrient content of the product.
On the price acceptability, 92% of the consumers said that the product is
affordable if the price is P50; this is followed by (69%) consumers can afford product if
the price is P55 in the market. But if the price increases to P58 and P60, most of the
consumers cannot afford the product price. Consumers also show their behavior on how
often they buy the product with the different price. Result shows that most (68.75%) of
the consumers buy ones a week only.
36
Product acceptability in the market was based on repeat order of the consumers.
Result shows that most of the consumers repeated the order with the price of P50 and
P55. Most of those who repeated the orders were employed, health conscious and those
who have enough money.
Conclusion
The following conclusions were based on the findings of the study:
1. The fish patty did not differ in terms of taste, aroma, texture, appearance and
general acceptability as evaluated by the panelist/ consumers.
2. The type of packaging accepted by majority of the consumers was the 4.5” x 6.5”
Styrofoam noodle box.
3. The price of P50/ pack or P5 per piece was affordable to majority of the
consumers/ panelist but P58 and P60 per pack is not affordable to most of the
consumers.
4. The product has market potentials as indicated by repeated orders from majority
of the consumers.
Recommendation
1. Since the two product formulation did not differ significantly in terms of
acceptability by the consumers, the manufacturer should choose the formulation
which the lower cost of production.
37
2. Although the packaging presented to the respondents was acceptable to majority.
Innovations should be done to keep the cost low but maintain the good product
quality.
3. Since majority of the consumers could not afford P60 per pack the manufacturer
should keep the cost of production to keep the price also low. This possible
through increase volume of production so that the fixed cost would be diffused.
38
LITERATURE CITED
ARAZI, S. KILCAST, D. 2001. Retrieved August 13, 2007.
http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/fif/ sensory.htm.
ANANAYO, 2007. Negosyo Para sa Lahat, Seminar held at Convention Center.
BaguioCity
B.M WATTS, YLIMAKI, G.L., JEFREY, L.E., Elias, L.G. 1989, “Basic Sensory
method for food evaluation.” The International development research centre,
Ottawa,
Canada.
DULAWEN, M., 2007. Product Development of Mushroom- Based Product.
BS Thesis, Benguet State University.
GOULD, J.E. 1990- 2003., http://www.uwf.edu/jgould/perception.pdf. Retrieved
August 31, 2007.
KOTLER, P., 1976. Marketing Management (analysis, planning and control).
Prentice ll. Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey., p.5.
LUMADEW, M., 2007. Consumers’Acceptability of Yema de Cacao BS Thesis,
Benguet State University.
MABESA, L.B. 1986. Sensory evaluation of foods: Principles and methods College
of Agriculture University of the Philippines at Los Bañ0s, College ,
Laguna: CRDL Printing press Makiling Subdivision Los Baños, Laguna.
MINOSA, M- GATCHALIAN. 1989. Sensory evaluation methods for quality
assessment
and development. University of the Philippines Diliman,
Quezon City. Published by: College of Home Economics University of the
Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Oregon STATE UNIVERSITY. 1998. http://food.oregonstate.edu/sensory/dena.html.
Retrieved August 8, 13 2007
O’MAHONY, M. 995 http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/pdffiles/OIRSCHOT.pdf.
Retrieved August 31, 2007.
PAREDES, S., 2007, Consumers’ Perception on meat and vegetable- based Burger
BS Thesis, Benguet State University
REIDY, L.J. (n.d.) http://www.sweetmarias.com/article.sensory-evaluation.html.
Retrieved August 13, 2007
39
STANTON, W., 1977. Fundamentals of Marketing. Philippines Copyright. By
McGraw-Hill Inc. p.171- 172.
STONE ,H., 2006.Sensory Evaluation: Science and Mythology.
http://www.tragon.com/articles/sens_eval.html . Copyright: Tragon
Corporation365 Convention Way • Redwood City • California 94063-1402.
Retrieved October 13, 2007.
The GEORGE MATELJAN FOUNDATION 2001 2007
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=112#healthbenefi
ts. Retrieve August 20, 2007.
T. KINNEAR K. BERNHART, 1986, Principle of Marketing. Foreman and Company
United State of America., P. 106-107
40
QUESTIONNAIRE
Sensory Evaluation Sheet
Name (Optional) ______________________ Date __________________
Profession ___________________________ Age __________________
Address _____________________________ Product ________________
Instruction: Taste test the given samples and check how much you like or dislike
the products. Use the appropriate scale to show your attitude by checking the point in the
scale which best describes your feeling. Take a drink of water after each product tasted.
Hedonic Scaling
Formulation A
Rating Taste
Aroma/
Appearance/ Texture
General
Odor
color
(mouth
Acceptability
feel)
1. Like
Extremely
2. Like very
much
3. Like
moderately
4. Like slightly
5. Neither like or
dislike
6. Dislike
slightly
7. Dislike
moderately
8. Dislike very
much
9. Dislike
extremely
41
Formulation B
Rating Taste
Aroma/
Appearance/ Texture
General
Odor
color
(mouth feel) Acceptability
1. Like
Extremely
2. Like very
much
3. Like
moderately
4. Like slightly
5. Neither like or
dislike
6. Dislike
slightly
7. Dislike
moderately
8. Dislike very
much
9. Dislike
extremely
1. Price _________; ___________ Affordable; __________ Not Affordable
Suggested Price __________
* If the product will be available in the market at P ____ are you willing to buy?
____ Yes; ____ No
2. Is the size acceptable to you? ____ Yes; ____ No; If not what size do you like?
____ make it bigger; ____ smaller?
3. Choose packaging of the product ____ packaging A; ____ packaging B? If none what
do you like? Using
____; plane plastic/ cellophane ____; plastic cup
____; Styrofone cup ____; others Pls. specify?
Comments_______________________________________________________________
42
MARKET TESTING DATA SHEET
Outlet ________________
For retailers only.
DATE OF
QUANTITY
PRICE
SIZE/ NET WT. SALES
OBSERVATION
TURNOVER
P55
300
gms.
P55
300
gms
P55
300
gms
P55
300
gms
P55
300
gms
Price:
1. Is the price P55 affordable to you? ____Yes, ____ No. If yes, how many packs do you
want to buy?
____1 pck. ____ 2 pcks. ____ other please specify?
And how often do you want to buy? ____ everyday ____ twice a week, once a week,
____ other please specify?
2. Is the price P58 affordable to you? ____Yes, ____ No. If yes, how many packs do you
want to buy?
____1 pck. ____ 2 pcks. ____ other please specify?
And how often do you want to buy? ____ everyday ____ twice a week, once a week,
____ other please specify?
43
3. Is the price P60 affordable to you? ____Yes, ____ No. If yes, how many packs do you
want to buy?
____1 pck. ____ 2 pcks. ____ other please specify?
And how often do you want to buy? ____ everyday ____ twice a week, once a week,
____ other please specify?
Packaging:
1. Is the improved packaging acceptable to you? ____ yes, ____ No? If no ________ pls.
specify some medium of packaging to be use?
* Who has the higher of your customer or buyers of fish patties product? Pls. Check!
____ Students ____ Parents and other household consumers?
____ Yuppies (Single and employed)
* Are you willing to repeat the order? If yes how many pack/s ________ pls. specify?
Comments; ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
44
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (T- TEST) COMPUTATION
1) One way score group [fweght=taste], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.36
1.1911236
50
Formulation
B
2.26
.87621636
50
Total
2.31
1.0415121
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.25
1
.25
0.23 (ns) 0.6336
Within
groups
107.14
98
1.09326531
Total
107.39
99
1.08474747
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 4.5026
Prob > chi2= 0.034
2) Oneway score group [fweght=aroma], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.34
.96065454
50
Formulation
B
2.3625
.78343208
50
Total
2.3538462 .85237051
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.015576923
1
.015576923 0.02 (ns)
0.8843
Within
groups
93.7075
128
.732089844
Total
93.7230769
129
.72653548
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 4.5026
Prob > chi2= 0.034
45
3) One way score group [fweght=appearance], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.46
.93043769
50
Formulation
B
2.4
.880663057
50
Total
2.43
.90179395
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.09
1
.09
0.11 (ns) 0.7412
Within
groups
80.42
98
.820612245
Total
80.51
99
.813232323
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 0.1467
Prob > chi2= 0.702
4) One-way score group [fweght=texture], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.38
1.027976
50
Formulation
B
2.46
1.1104329
50
Total
2.42
1.0653401
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.16
1
.16
0.14 (ns) 0.7093
Within
groups
112.2
98
1.14489796
Total
112.18
99
1.13494949
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 3.729
Prob > chi2= 0.053
46
5) Oneway score group [fweght= General Acceptability], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.34
.93917028
50
Formulation
B
2.36
1.2414606
50
Total
2.35
.0952146
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.01
1
.01
0.01 (ns) 0.9278
Within
groups
118.75
98
1.21163265
Total
118.75
99
1.1994995
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 3.7289
Prob > chi2= 0.053
DE GUZMAN, JAMES A. MARCH 2008. Sensory Evaluation of Fish Patties in
La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Evangeline Cungihan, MSc
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted in La Trinidad, Benguet to determine the acceptability
of panelist/ consumers on the two formulation of fish patty product in terms of taste,
texture, aroma, appearance, and their general acceptability to the product, including its
packaging and price. Product Formulation A contains 70% fish tuna and 30% other
ingredients while product Formulation B contains 50% fish tuna and 50% other
ingredients and spices; this was done through sensory evaluation by 50 respondents.
After the sensory evaluation, a market testing was conducted to find the market
potential of the product most accepted by the evaluators.
The findings revealed that the two product formulations did not differ
significantly in terms of taste, texture, aroma, appearance, and general acceptability. The
price that is acceptable and affordable by the consumers was P5 per piece or P55 per
pack. The packaging most accepted by the consumers was the Packaging A.
The findings also revealed that there were repeated orders from the customers
who bought the product. Majority said that they would buy the product once a week if the
price is P55 but only a few would continue to buy the product on a weekly basis if the
price will increase to P60.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………….…………… i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………… i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………. ii
INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the Study …………………………………………………... …… 1
Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………... 2
Objectives of the study …………………………………………………………...3
Importance of the study …………………………………………………………..3
Scope and Limitation ……………………………………………………………. 4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sensory evaluation ………………………………………………………………. 5
Perception
……………………………………………………………………….. 8
Consumer Testing ……………………………………………………………….. 9
Acceptability
………………………………………………………………......... 9
Factors to Consider during Sensory Evaluation ………………………….…….. 10
New product ……………………………………………………………… … . 10
Sensory Attribute of Food ……………………………………………….. 11
The Marketer ……………………………………………………………… 11
Market Testing ……………………………………………………………. 12
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………. 12
ii
METHODOLOGY
Locale and time of the study ……………………………………………… 14
Respondents of the Study …………………………………………………. 14
Data Collection ……………………………………………………………. 14
Data to be gathered…………………………………………..…………….. 15
Data analysis ……………………………………………………………..... 15
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Product Description ……………………………………………………….. 16
Age and Types of Respondents …………………………………………… 16
Sensory Evaluation of fish patties …………………………………………. 17
Acceptability as to Taste Evaluation ……………………………………….. 17
Acceptability as to Appearance Evaluation ………….…………………….. 19
Acceptability as to Aroma Evaluation …..………………………………….. 21
Acceptability as to Texture Evaluation ……………………………………... 22
General Acceptability of the Two Formulations …………………………... 24
Panels Acceptability as to the Packaging of the Product ………………….. 25
Panels Ratings on the Given Sample Price ………………………………… 27
Market Testing of the Product ………………………………………….……….28
Target Market Acceptability as to the Market Price …………………………… 28
Consumers Mode of Buying the Product ………………………………………. 29
Acceptability of the Improved Packaging of the Product…..…………….. ….. 30
Consumers Willingness to Repeat the Order …………………………….. ….. 32
iii
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary …………………………………………………………………. 33
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 36
Recommendation …………………………………………………………. 36
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………… 38
APPENDIX
Sensory Evaluation Sheet ………………………………………………… 40
Market Testing Data Sheet ……………………………………………….. 42
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS COMPUTATION…………………………………. 44
iv
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Product evaluation is one useful tool for quality control. Products generally are
evaluated when new recipe is being tested. However product evaluation should be
continuing process to make as certain that the original high quality is maintained if not
improved the responsibility for this important part of quality control should be assigned
to a person or committee, but staff, employees and consumers often participate. Many
large food services and most commissaries have facilities for product development and
laboratories for product evaluation Hargar, et al, (1988) as cited by (Lumadew, 2007).
Consumers’ acceptability is the key major factor to a successful new or innovative
new product. Their taste and preferences including their purchasing power will help to
determine the quality of the product to be produce. But the most critical factor is the
market, the deciding factor in production Anderson (2006) as cited by (Dulawen, 2007).
Arazi and Kilcast, (2001) mentioned that without sensory evaluation or analysis,
there is a high risk in market failure. Where sensory analysis was too frequently often
overlooked as a requirement before product launch and introduced to the market, in order
to suit the satisfaction of the consumers.
Production of new products which are healthy and nutritious is now the concern
of food producers and processors, because consumers are now becoming health conscious
(Ananayo, 2007). Some also look into new product in the market, prefer ready to cook or
eat food and fast food.
2
Fish patty is considered a new product which does not exist yet in the food
market. It is out of fish tuna (yellow fin tuna) and with other raw ingredients and spices.
There are eight species of tuna and all of these are found and produce also in the
Philippines. Yellow fin or “Thunnus albacares” in Latin word, which is the second tuna
species in term of volume and popularity. They are found between 45oN and 40oS. They
cover enormous distances around the globe, and all stocks mingle. Tuna fish are truly a
nutrient- dense food. An excellent source of high quality protein, tuna are rich in a variety
of important nutrients including the minerals selenium, magnesium, and potassium; the
vitamins niacin, B1 and B6; and perhaps most important, the beneficial omega-3 essential
fatty acids are so named because they are essential for our health but cannot be made by
the body; they therefore be obtained from foods (George Mateljan Foundation, 2001-
2007)
Since fish patty is new and not known by the consumers this study was done to
find out what consumer say about the product. The “sensory evaluation of fish patty”
aims to meet the appropriate formulation that could meet the desire of the consumers.
Statement of the Problem
The study intends to answer the following questions:
1. What fish patty formulation is most accepted by the consumers/ panelist in term
of taste, texture, aroma and appearance including and the general acceptability?
2. What is the level of consumers acceptability of fish patty base on their sensory
evaluation?
3. What is the market potential of fish patty?
3
Hypothesis
1. The fish patty product most accepted between the two formulations as to the taste,
texture, and appearance and the general acceptability were formulation B, based
on higher percentages of ratings. Except for the acceptability of aroma which
formulation A is most preferred by the panelist.
2. The level of acceptability based on their sensory evaluation has no significant
differences. This means the both formulations were almost the same in terms of
taste, appearance, texture, aroma and the general acceptability.
Objectives of the Study
The study aimed to:
1. determine the fish patty formulation most acceptable to the consumers/ panelist
in term of taste, texture, aroma and appearance,
2. determine the level of consumers’ acceptability on sensory of the fish patty, and
3. determine the market potential of the accepted fish patty formulation.
Importance of the Study
The result of the study would help the processor to improve the product to suit the
satisfaction of the consumers. This study would be useful to students who would be
conducting similar studies in the future. It could also be a basis for further researched to
improve the product quality.
4
Scope and Limitation
This study was conducted in La Trinidad, Benguet where data is gathered. The
study is focused in determining the acceptability of different formulations of fish patty
products using hedonic scale based on sensory evaluation, the level of consumers’
acceptability and market testing was done only in three locations in La Trinidad because
of time and financial constraints.
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sensory Evaluation
The Institute of Food Technology (IFT) Sensory Evaluation Division U.S.A.
defines sensory evaluation as “a specific discipline used to evoked , measure, analyze and
interpret sensations as they are perceived by the senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and
hearing” (Gatchalian, M., 1989).
As stated by Mabesa, L. B., (1986), it is a procedure that is used quite often in
food science and technology because such sensory characteristics of food products as
flavor (odor and taste), color and texture are closely involved with consumer appreciation
and acceptance. She cited also that it is no more an art which can be done only by few
experts. It has become a science that can be taught in a very systematic way.
According to Watts B., Ylimaki, G., Jeffrey, L., Elias, L., (1989), sensory analysis
is a multidisciplinary science of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing to measure the
sensory characteristics and acceptability of food products, as well as many other
materials. There is no one instrument that can replicate or replace the human response,
making sensory evaluation component of any food study is essential. Sensory analysis is
applicable to a variety of areas such as product development, product improvement,
quality control, storage studies and process development.
Sensory evaluation is the science of judging and evaluating the quality of the food
by the use of senses i.e. taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing. Sensory testing has been
developed into a precise, formal, structured methodology that is continually being
updated to refine existing techniques. Sensory evaluation is divided into methods,
6
subjective and objective testing. Subjective test involves objective panelist while
objective testing employs the use of lab instrument with no involvement of the senses.
Both tests are essential in sensory evaluation and necessary in a variety of condition
(Oregon State University., 1998).
Reidy, E.J., (n.d), stated that sensory evaluation is a scientific discipline use to
evoke measure, analyze and interpret reactions to the characteristics of foods and
materials as they are perceived by the senses. Humans are used in much the same way a
scientist might use a gas chromatograph. It is the conscious effort to identify and judge
different sensations and components in an object, be it a piece of food, a beverage, or a
perfume. Sensory evaluation encompasses all of the senses. It takes into account several
different disciplines but emphasizes the behavioural basis of perception. It involves the
measurement and evaluation of sensory properties of food and other materials. Human
judges are used to measure the flavor or sensory characteristics of food. In short, sensory
evaluation is a very "Gestalt" approach to product assessment.
Sensory evaluation has had a long and active relationship with the food industry.
Most of the earliest work on methods development and applications was supported by the
industry, which came to appreciate the relationship between a product's sensory
characteristics and market success. Over the past three decades sensory professionals
made considerable strides in achieving acceptance from its scientific peers. A variety of
misconceptions and myths about sensory evaluation had to be challenged; including, for
example, the traumas of organolepsis and triangulation (both diseases of the mind) and
the tyranny of experts (tongue, nose, etc.) stating what to perceive, what to call the
perceptions, and what the consumer would like. With increased acceptance by their peers,
7
sensory professionals were able to participate in the product decision making process, as
well as provide procedures for marketing and quality oriented tests. In more recent years,
however, these gains have become in danger of being lost with the re-emergence of
experts; the proposition that people can be trained to be invariant; sameness testing a
curious but flawed concept that posits that products not perceived as different must be the
same, as if products ever are the same; universal scales; and the use of statistical
terrorism; e.g., using complex algorithms as a substitute for a well organized and fielded
test. (Stone, H., 2006). He further explained that it is a science that measures, analyzes,
and interprets the reactions of the senses of sight, smell, sound, taste, and texture (or
kinesthesis) to products. It is a people science; i.e., people are essential to obtain
information about products. With that product information in hand, business decisions are
made often with major economic impact. This people testing process may seem simple
enough; however, there are numerous ways by which one goes about deciding who in the
population will participate, how they will be tested, and what kinds of questions will be
asked. Much research has been done to understand consumer behavior and there is no
doubt much more will be done before we have a better understanding of consumer choice
behavior. In this work, one regularly encounters myths about consumer behavior that
defy established knowledge about the anatomy and physiology of the senses and
observed response behavior. One of these myths is the proposition that consumers can be
trained to be invariant. Subjects providing the same response each time a specific
stimulus is presented is used as evidence of the validity of this approach, where as it is
confusing reliability with validity and using a form of behavior modification to fool us
8
into thinking that individuals trained to provide the same response to a stimulus is
realistic response behavior (Stone, H., 2006)
This information is obtained by asking specific questions about a person’s age,
sex, geographic location, nationality, religion, education and employment along with
their preferences on the product being tested. To put it more simply, it stereotypes user
groups based on these variables and learns the preferences of particular groups' eating
habits. Of course this is not done because of prejudicial motivation, but simply because
consumer preferences tend to be very grouped based on such factors listed above. This
type of testing is a very accurate tool in understanding consumer preferences (Bopp, P.
1997).
Perception
Paredes, H. (2007) cited that personality is internal in which both experiment and
behavior related in an orderly way. Uniqueness arises from heredity and our experiences.
And perception receives information through the senses: sight, taste and hearing. Inputs
information is the sensation received through the sense organs. When we hear
advertisement, see friend and taste a product.
According to, Gould, J., (1990- 2003) sensation precedes perception and is the
process whereby our sensory receptors receive, transduce, and code stimulus information
into electrochemical impulses in our nervous system; it is the initial, relatively simple
process of detecting individual stimuli. Where perception is the subsequent selection,
organization, and interpretation of sensory input, it is the process of obtaining
information about both the external and internal environments, which results, via
9
integration utilizing memory, in the conscious experience, recognition, and interpretation
of objects, object relationships, and events.
Consumer Testing
Consumer testing is a tool used to try to answer questions about the success of a
new product. Although there are many different types of consumer tests, the Affective
Test is the most popular for basic consumer testing of food. Affective tests, when done
properly. Allow different treatments to be judged to find the optimum accepted product.
In addition, other Break the masses of consumers down into smaller groups to allow an
understanding of who will assess the market share potential for the new product (Bopp,
P.A., 1997).
Acceptability
O’Mahony, M., (1995), stated that food acceptability is often referred to as liking,
preference, enjoyment, selection and consumption of a food or drink or food quality.
Food acceptability represents different forms of behavior to food products. It is therefore
vital that the objective of any Consumer study is clearly defined in advance and the
experimental design and questionnaires are carefully designed. For example, "How much
do you like" is not the same as "how much do you eat" because consumption is
influenced by price, availability, whether the consumer is on a diet etc.The selection and
choice of food by an individual are determined by factors resulting from both the food
product and the individual.
10
Factors to Consider during Sensory Evaluation
Design of experiments, these is where experimental error that have possibility in
all experimental work. Error and bias during sensory testing can be minimized through
the use of techniques such as of that randomization. Replications also increase the
precision of the experiment. She added randomization does two things; it prevents an
overlooked effect from becoming identified with an experimental factor, and it ensures
that any small overlooked effect is impartially distributed among the comparisons used to
judge the methods. Food samples should be evaluated at a temperature at which they are
normally consumed (Mabesa, 1986).
New Product
A product is something that is viewed as capable of satisfying a want. A want is
described as state of felt deprivation in a person. This deprivation produces discomfort.
The want energizes the person and puts him into an active state- and gives him direction.
The person will perceive certain things outside of himself that would satisfy his wants.
And maybe this things/want can be could a product (Kotler, P., 1976). He also mentioned
that product is anything that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use, or
consumption that might satisfy a need or a want (Kotler, 1989).
Stanton, W., (1977), categorizes new product as a) product which are really
innovative- truly unique- products which there is a real need but for which there are no
existing substitute generally considered satisfactory, b) adaptive replacements of existing
products involving a significant differentiation in the existing article, c) Imitative
11
products which are new to your company but not new to the market. Your firm simply
wants to enter that existing market with essentially a “me too” product.
Sensory Attributes of Food
Sensory attributes of food are detected by all our senses as is illustrated
in the following diagram.
Fig. 1.Types of Stimuli
The Marketer
The marketer must determine if a) there is a need for a product or services; b)
those with a need are interested in buying the product or services; c) these consumers
have enough money; and d) those with enough money are willing to spend it on the
product or services (Kinnear and Benrhardt, 1986).
12
Market Testing
Market is an open frontier, full of hopes and expectations for new business,
products and services. It can be a dangerous place for someone who has never
experienced the excitement and possible pit- falls of commerce. Thousands of inventors
test their product on the market every year, only to find the journey too treacherous. To
truly become product- smart, the inventor must test the market. Testing the market is to
understand customers, pricing, barriers to entry, and competitors gives the inventor a
better shot at making their trip market a success, Anonymous (2006) as cited by
(Lumadew, 2007).
Definition of terms
Acceptability- is referred to as liking, preference, enjoyment, selection and
consumption of a quality food.
Consumer testing- tool used to try to answer questions about the success of a new
product or through market testing.
Marketer- one who is selling or supplying a product to the market
Market testing- is testing the target market or consumers and promoting a new
product whether it is acceptable to the market.
New product- is an innovative product that is new to the market that capable for
satisfying a want.
Perception- it is a perceive stimuli (thoughts, idea, reaction and awareness) of
consumer in the acceptability of a product.
13
Sensory evaluation- is a tool used to evaluate quality of food or a certain new
product by the use of our senses i.e. taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing.
.
14
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
Sensory evaluation of different formulation of fish patty was conducted at La
Trinidad, Benguet. This was done last December, 2007 to January, 2008. For sensory
evaluation it was conducted in three locations only; one Poblacion La Trinidad Benguet,
Km. 5 Public Market and Benguet State University Campus. The market testing of the
chosen product formulation was conducted also in the same locations where sensory
evaluations were done.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the residents of La Trinidad, Benguet,
specifically high school and college students, faculty/ employees and other consumers.
The panelist or product evaluators were determined as to their age and profession. For
sensory evaluation of different formulations panelist were composed of 20 panelists from
Poblacion, La Trinidad, 20 panelist from Benguet State University campus, and 10
panelists from Km. 5 Public Market these panelists or evaluator were chosen randomly.
For the market testing, the same locations were chosen for testing the market
acceptability of the product.
Data Collection
Scorecard or evaluation sheet was prepared as a tool in gathering the data for
sensory evaluation the panelists were given samples of the different formulations and
15
made a taste test and rate the products based on their sensory perception. The accepted
formulation was tested in the market with the used of market testing data sheet.
Data Gathered
The data gathered included the following; primary: a) Consumers acceptability as
to their sensory evaluation on fish patty, b) the level of acceptability on different product
formulation, secondary: c) and market potential of fish patty.
Data Analysis
All the data collected were tabulated and presented using frequency counts,
percentages and mean. The relationship on the level of acceptability of the
different formulation was analyzed using T- test. Repeated orders were used to
determine the market potential of the chosen product formulation.
16
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Product Description
There were two product compositions of fish patties that were developed. These
are the “formulation A” which composed of 70% of fish tuna and 30% other ingredients
and spices, and “formulation B” which composed of 50% fish tuna and 50% other
ingredients.
Age and Types of Respondents
There were 50 respondents who evaluated the product formulations and they are
determined as to their age and what types of consumers; this are the students and non-
students. Results showed from (Table 1) that most (48%) of the panelist who evaluated
the product belonged to the age range from 13- 24 years old. This is followed by 26%
which is 25-37 years old, twenty percent belonged to 38- 49 years old and 6% of the
panelist were 50 years old and above.
Evaluators/ panelist were determined also classified into students and non-
students (Table 1) presents that (48%) of the evaluators were high school and colleges
students and 52% were non- students. These included school employees, house wives and
other consumers.
17
Table 1. Age and types of product evaluators/ panelists
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
(F)
(%)
a. Age
13- 24
24
48
25- 37
13
26
38-
49
10
20
50- Above
3
6
TOTAL 50 100
b. Types of consumers
Students (College and High
24
48
School)
Non- Students (Employees, 26
52
House wives, and
Other consumers)
TOTAL 50 100
Sensory Evaluation of Fish Patties
Sensory evaluation was done to evaluate the acceptability of the two product
formulation based on taste, appearance, aroma, texture, including its general
acceptability, price affordability and the packaging of the product.
Acceptability as to Taste Evaluation
Taste was evaluated according to the good composition or combinations of the
product formulation, result showed (Table 2) that most (30%) of the respondents
indicated that they like the formulation A very much. There were 28% who mentioned
that they extremely like the product formulation while 26% said that they like
moderately, and 12% said they like slightly and one respondent each mentioned neither
like nor dislike and dislike slightly the formulation A.
18
For product formulation B, 20% of the respondents mentioned they extremely
like the product, 42% like very much, 30% like moderately and only 8% like slightly.
None of the respondents mentioned neither like nor dislike the formulation. Most of the
panelist also said that the taste of both formulations were delicious and taste good.
The computed mean for product formulation A was 2.36 which are interpreted as
like very much and for product formulation B was 2.26 and the same as like very much
by the panelist in term of taste. Statistical analysis using T- test showed that there is no
significant differences in the taste of the two product formulations. This implies therefore
that the two product formulations have the same taste according to the evaluation of the
panelist. Thus the null hypothesis that acceptability of taste between the two formulations
has no significant differences is accepted.
Table 2. Panelist rating on the taste of the two formulations/ compositions of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 14 28 10 20
2. Like very much 15 30 21 42
3. Like moderately 13 26 15 30
4. Like slightly 6 12 4 8
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 - -
6. Dislike slightly 1 2 - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.36 2.26
Rating Scale
0.23 (ns)
1- Extremely Like
9- Dislike Extremely
ns- No significant
19
Acceptability as to Appearance Evaluation
Acceptability of the appearance was referred to the size, shape and color of the
product (Figure 2). Both formulations have the same shape and size. Both are round
shape and weighed for 27.5 gms. per piece patty, the only difference is there colors.
“Formulation A” have a darker or brownish color, while “Formulation B” have a lighter
or light brown and dotted with green particles (green leaves of chives) or appeared like a
veggie patty.
In terms of color indicator, (Table 3) shows that 14% of the panelist rated
Formulation A as extremely like, 40% as like very much, 34% like moderately and 10%
as like slightly. No one among the panelist who evaluates the formula as neither like nor
dislike.
Formulation B was evaluated by 14% of the panelist as like extremely, most
(44%) said that they like very much, 30% rated like moderately, 12% also said that they
like slightly the formulation and no one rated as dislike slightly.
The computed mean of the two formulations was 2.46 for formulation A which is
interpreted as like very much while 2.4 for formulation B and interpreted also as like
very much by the panelist. Statistical analysis using T- test on the level of acceptability
showed that both appearances of the two formulations have no significant differences.
Thus the null hypothesis that the acceptability of the two formulations as to the
appearance has no significant difference is accepted.
20
Table 3. Panel rating on the appearance of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 7 14 7 14
2. Like very much 20 40 22 44
3. Like moderately 17 34 15 30
4. Like slightly 5 10 6 12
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 - -
6. Dislike slightly - - - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.46 2.4
Rating Scale
0.11 (ns)
Fig. 2. Samples of the two formulations
21
Acceptability as to Aroma Evaluation
The acceptability of aroma for formulation A result showed that extremely like
was evaluated by 18% of the panelist, while 44% said that they like very much , 26% also
evaluated as like moderately, 10% as like slightly, and one respondent (2%) said neither
like nor dislike the aroma of the formulation.
The evaluation for formulation B, showed that 10% of the panelist evaluated the
aroma as extremely like, 36% as like very much and most (40%) said that they like
moderately. Some (8%) respondents rated the formulation as like slightly and 4% said
that they neither like nor dislike the formulation (Table 4). The result obviously shows
that most of the panelist preferred the aroma of formulation A, may be because of the
higher percentages of fish tuna composition.
The computed mean for formulation A was 2.34 which is interpreted as like very
much and 2.36 was computed for formulation B and interpreted also as like very much by
the panelist. Statistical analysis showed that there is no significant difference on the
aroma. Thus the null hypothesis that the acceptability of panelist in terms of aroma has
no significant differences is accepted.
22
Table 4. Panel rating on the aroma of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 9 18 5 10
2. Like very much 22 44 19 38
3. Like moderately 13 26 20 40
4. Like slightly 5 10 4 8
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 2 4
6. Dislike slightly - - - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.34 2.36
Rating Scale
0.02 (ns)
Acceptability as to Texture Evaluation
Texture of the product refers to the fineness and tenderness of the two
formulations as to the mouth feel of the panelist. Formulation A results showed that most
(34%) of the panelist like very much the texture, followed by like moderately as
evaluated by 30% of the respondents and 22% as extremely like the formulation.
However, 12% of the respondents said that they like slightly and one respondent (2%)
evaluated as neither like nor dislike the texture.
For formulation B, most (38%) of the panelist evaluated the formulation as like
very much, 32% as like moderately, and 18% said that they extremely like the
23
formulation. Some of the panelist (6%) evaluated as like slightly, 4% neither like nor
dislike and one respondent (2%) dislike slightly the texture of the formulation.
The mean ratings for the two formulations as to texture was 2.38 for formulation
A and 2.46 for formulation B and both formulations were interpreted as like very much
by the panelist. Statistical analysis using T- test showed no significant differences
between the two means. This implies that both product formulations are similar in
texture. Thus the null hypothesis that acceptability between the two formulations as to the
texture has no significant difference is accepted.
Table 5. Panel rating on the texture of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 11 22 9 18
2. Like very much 17 34 19 38
3. Like moderately 15 30 16 32
4. Like slightly 6 12 3 6
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 2 4
6. Dislike slightly - - 1 2
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - - -
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.38 2.46
Rating Scale
0.14 (ns)
24
General Acceptability Evaluation of the Two Formulations
The criteria in judging general acceptability was based on the general perception /
rating of the evaluators as to the taste, appearance, texture, aroma and including the
packaging of the product. Comparing the two formulations, result showed (Table 6) for
formulation A that 42% of the panelist like very much the formulation, followed by like
moderately as evaluated by 30% evaluators, 18% evaluators responded as extremely like
and 8% said that they like slightly, while one of the respondents said neither like nor this
like the formulation.
For formulation B, most (50%) of the respondents said they like very much the
product, 22% said that they like moderately, and the same with formulation A that 18%
of the panelist rated as extremely like the formulation and only 4% evaluated as like
slightly while one (2%) of the respondent rated as dislike very much.
The computed mean of the two formulations was, 2.34 for formulation A and 2.36
for formulation B and both formulations were interpreted as like very much by the
respondents. Statistical analysis using T- test showed that the level of acceptability
between the two formulations has no significant differences. Thus null hypothesis that
acceptability between the two formulations as to general acceptability has no significant
differences is accepted.
25
Table 6. Panel rating on the general acceptability of the two formulations of fish patties
RATING PRODUCT FORMULATIONS
Formulation A Formulation B
F % F %
1. Extremely like 9 18 9 18
2. Like very much 21 42 25 50
3. Like moderately 15 30 11 22
4. Like slightly 4 8 2 4
5. Neither like nor dislike 1 2 - -
6. Dislike slightly - - - -
7. Dislike moderately - - - -
8. Dislike very much - - 1 2
9. Dislike extremely - - - -
TOTAL 50 100 50 100
MEAN 2.34 2.36
Rating Scale
0.01 (ns)
Panel/ Evaluators Acceptability as to the Packaging of the Product.
Panelists were given two types or sample of packaging that was used in rating the
product (figure 3). The evaluators were also asked to suggest some types of packaging
materials which they think is appropriate for the product. The two samples of packaging
are “Packaging A”, the medium used was 4.5” x 6.5” styrofoam noodle box and
“Packaging B” was used of 4” x 4” styrofoam spaghetti box. Results shows that
“Packaging A” is most preferred by 74% of the panelist followed by “Packaging B” was
least preferred by 18% of the panelist. As shown in Table 7, 4% of the panelist suggested
plane plastic and some panelist (4%) preferred Styrofoam cup as a medium to be used as
packaging material of the product.
26
Most of the panelist gave their comments on the packaging of the product
especially on the labelling, complete information of nutrition facts, ingredients, used of
the product and its life span. They further suggested that the label should not cover the
product.
Table 7. Panels rating on the acceptability of packaging
SAMPLE PACKAGING LEVEL OF ACCEPTABILITY
AND SUGGESTIONS
__________________________________________
F %
________________________________________________________________________
Packaging A 37 74
Packaging B 9 18
________________________________________________________________________
Suggestions:
a) Plane plastic 2 4
b) Styrofone cup 2 4
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 50 100
Figure 3. Sample packaging of the product
27
Panelist Rating on the Given Sample Price
Product price were evaluated in order to measure the acceptability and
affordability by the consumers. The given sample price of the product was P5 per piece
or P50 per pack. The acceptability of the panelist was shown in Table 8. Most (96%) of
the respondents evaluated the product price per piece as affordable, while 4% said that it
is not affordable. The P50 per pack was affordable to 92% of the panelist. There were 8%
who said that the product price is not affordable.
The panelists were also asked to suggest price that are affordable to them. This
information was used to find out the affordability of the product in the market. Table 8
present that 4% of the panelist suggested P6 per piece, while some (2%) suggested P7 per
piece as affordable. The finding shows that P5 per piece or P50 per pack is affordable to
the consumers.
Table 8. Sample price during sensory evaluation
PARTICULAR PERCENTAGES OF PRICE ACCEPTABILITY
___________________________________________________
Affordable
Not Affordable
F % F %
a) Price per piece and per pack
P5 per piece 48 96 2 4
P50 per pack 46 92 4 8
b) SUGGESTED PRICE PERCENTAGES
PER PIECE
F %
P6 2 4
P7 1 2
28
Market Testing/ Acceptability of the Product
(Chosen Formulation)
Market testing was done to measure the acceptability of the product to the target
market or consumers as to the price of the product per packed, improved packaging, the
willingness to repeat the order, and what specific consumers could buy and afford the
product, based on retailer and marketer observations.
Product acceptability was done in specific locations at La Trinidad, Benguet, and
where sensory evaluation was done. There were 16 consumers/buyers who evaluated the
product, 1 stall was supplied at Km. 5 (Public Market), and the marketer also does
individual selling to 10 consumers at Km6, Benguet State University and 5 house hold
consumers at Poblacion La Trinidad, Benguet. The product formulation tested in the
market was that of “Formulation B” (50%: 50%), which is most preferred by the product
evaluators.
Target market acceptability as to the market price. Target consumers were given a
situation on price increase, in which if the price was P55 in the market, and if the price
increases to P58 and P60. Result shows (Table 9) that if the price is P55 in the market
68.75% of the consumers rated the product price as affordable while 31.25% said that it
is not affordable. But if the price will increases to P58, most (62.5%) of the consumers
said that the product is not affordable, the same if the price increases to P60, 81.25% of
the consumers rated the product price as not affordable. This findings implies that if the
price of the fish patty will increase a little, majority of the consumers would not be able
to afford it.
29
Table 9. Consumers rating on the acceptability of different prices
PRICES PERCENTAGE OF PRICE ACCEPTABILITY
______________________________________________________
Affordable
Not affordable
_______________________________________________________
F % F %
________________________________________________________________________
P55 11 68.75 5 31.25
P58 6 37.5 10 62.5
P60 3 18.75 13 81.25
Consumers behavior in buying the product. Consumers behavior as to how often
they buy the product incase it is available in the market including the quantity that they
will buy was analyzed. There were sixteen (16) regular buyers who were asked about the
affordability of the product. Eleven or 68.75% said that P55 per pack is affordable and
31.25 said it is not affordable and 62.5% said it is not affordable when the price was
raised to P60 per pack, the number of respondents who said the price is affordable
decreased to only 18.75%.
The respondents were further asked how often they will buy the product
per week and the quantity they will buy when the price is P55, P58 and P60. The result
shows that if the price is P55, majority (68.75) of the respondents would buy once a week
at most two packs. One of the respondents would buy 2 packs twice a week if the price is
P55.
30
When the price was increased to P58 per pack, only 7 respondents would buy
once a week. Majority of them would buy only one pack. One of the respondents would
still buy twice a week but the quantity would decrease from 2 packs to one pack.
When the price was further increased to P60, the number of the respondents
willing to buy the product further decrease to only five (5). Further more, the respondents
who would buy twice a week reduced to only once a week. This finding shows that the
P60 per pack is not affordable to many of the consumers.
Table 10. Frequency and volume purchase at different set of prices
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY PERCENTAGES
(F)
(%)
a) How often to buy and how many pack/s to buy?
P55:
Once a week
11
68.75
1
pck
3
18.75
2
pcks
3
18.75
Twice
a
week
1
6.25
2pcks
1
6.25
(Others:)
Twice a month
1
6.25
2
pcks
1
6.25
P58:
Once
a
week
7
43.75
1pck
6
37.50
2
pcks
1
6.25
Twice
a
week
1
6.25
31
Table 10 continued…
________________________________________________________________________
P60:
Once
a
week
5
31.25
1pck
3
18.75
2pcks
1
6.25
Target market acceptability as to the improved packaging of the product.
Improved packaging refers to the attractiveness and labelling acceptability of the
consumers. Packaging was shown in Figure 4. Materials used were 4.5” x 6.5” styrofoam
noodle box and 3.5” x 3.5” plastic in between each patty and the product was covered
with a cling wrapper. Packaging also includes product labelling and product information
as to shelf- life.
The result shows that 75% of the consumers accepted the product packaging. One
or (6.25%) each suggested the use of indigenous materials such as (banana leaves), and
plastic container (Table 11). Result implies that consumers accepted the packaging
material however more improvements were suggested for safety purposes of the product.
32
Table 11. Consumers acceptability of the improved product packaging
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
(F)
(%)
Acceptable 12 75
Not Acceptable 2 12.5
Suggestions:
Indigenous materials
1
6.25
Plastic container
1
6.25
TOTAL
16
100
Fig. 4. Sample of the improved packaging
Consumers willingness to repeat the order. Consumers willingness to repeat the
order was based on the observations of the marketer. According to the marketer, many
consumers like the product and are willing to repeat the order however; most of them are
price conscious. Most who repeated the order are those who have jobs or being
33
employed, and those who have knowledge on the benefits they got from the product.
These were the consumers who are health conscious. Although students like the product
but their affordability to buy the product is low. Almost 50% of the consumers repeated
the order with the price of P50 and P55, while others do not repeat the order because they
either did not like the product, want to see more improvement on the product or can not
afford the price.
34
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability of fish patty by target
consumers based on the characteristics of the product. Thus, this study aimed to
determine what fish patties product formulation is the most acceptable to the consumers/
panelist, determine the level of consumers acceptability on the different formulation of
fish patties, and to determine the market potential of the most preferred formulation by
the panelist.
Two formulations were developed and used for sensory evaluation by doing taste
test. Formulations were composed of a) 70% fish tuna and 30% other ingredients and
spices, b) 50% fish tuna and 50% other ingredients and spices. The panelist/ evaluators
were selected through random sampling. Evaluators were classified as students and non-
students. Product testing was done only in three locations at the La Trinidad, Benguet;
Km5 public Market, Benguet State University campus, and at Poblacion (San Jose high
school) la Trinidad, Benguet because of time and financial constraints. There were 50
respondents who evaluated the product.
Both formulations were rated by the panelist as to the taste, aroma, texture,
appearance, general acceptability including the size and packaging of the product. Results
showed that “Formulation B” is the most preferred by evaluators/ panelists. Except for
the aroma which is 44% of the panelist was preferred “Formulation A” and rated as like
very much. While formulation B was rated as like moderately by 40% of the panelist/
evaluators. Statistical analysis shows that the level of acceptability of the two product
35
formulations as to the taste, aroma, texture, appearance and the general acceptability did
not significantly. Thus the null hypothesis that acceptability between the two
formulations as to the taste, aroma, texture, appearance, and the general acceptability of
the product has no significant differences is accepted. As to the packaging material of the
product, the most preferred by the 74% of the panelists was that of “Packaging A”
(Figure 3). The medium used was 4” x 6” spaghetti box styrofoam covered with
cellophane.
Market testing was conducted in the same locations, Km5 (public Market),
Benguet State University campus and at Poblacion (San Jose high school) la Trinidad,
Benguet. The formulation being tested in the market was the most preferred by the
panelist which was the “Formulation B” composition. Results shows that most of the
consumers like the product, and most of them said that the taste was good, it’s a healthy
product and delicious.
Acceptability as to the improved packaging were accepted by 75% of the target
market, but most of the consumers comments was to improved more on the nutritional
facts or show the nutrient content of the product.
On the price acceptability, 92% of the consumers said that the product is
affordable if the price is P50; this is followed by (69%) consumers can afford product if
the price is P55 in the market. But if the price increases to P58 and P60, most of the
consumers cannot afford the product price. Consumers also show their behavior on how
often they buy the product with the different price. Result shows that most (68.75%) of
the consumers buy ones a week only.
36
Product acceptability in the market was based on repeat order of the consumers.
Result shows that most of the consumers repeated the order with the price of P50 and
P55. Most of those who repeated the orders were employed, health conscious and those
who have enough money.
Conclusion
The following conclusions were based on the findings of the study:
1. The fish patty did not differ in terms of taste, aroma, texture, appearance and
general acceptability as evaluated by the panelist/ consumers.
2. The type of packaging accepted by majority of the consumers was the 4.5” x 6.5”
Styrofoam noodle box.
3. The price of P50/ pack or P5 per piece was affordable to majority of the
consumers/ panelist but P58 and P60 per pack is not affordable to most of the
consumers.
4. The product has market potentials as indicated by repeated orders from majority
of the consumers.
Recommendation
1. Since the two product formulation did not differ significantly in terms of
acceptability by the consumers, the manufacturer should choose the formulation
which the lower cost of production.
37
2. Although the packaging presented to the respondents was acceptable to majority.
Innovations should be done to keep the cost low but maintain the good product
quality.
3. Since majority of the consumers could not afford P60 per pack the manufacturer
should keep the cost of production to keep the price also low. This possible
through increase volume of production so that the fixed cost would be diffused.
38
LITERATURE CITED
ARAZI, S. KILCAST, D. 2001. Retrieved August 13, 2007.
http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/fif/ sensory.htm.
ANANAYO, 2007. Negosyo Para sa Lahat, Seminar held at Convention Center.
BaguioCity
B.M WATTS, YLIMAKI, G.L., JEFREY, L.E., Elias, L.G. 1989, “Basic Sensory
method for food evaluation.” The International development research centre,
Ottawa,
Canada.
DULAWEN, M., 2007. Product Development of Mushroom- Based Product.
BS Thesis, Benguet State University.
GOULD, J.E. 1990- 2003., http://www.uwf.edu/jgould/perception.pdf. Retrieved
August 31, 2007.
KOTLER, P., 1976. Marketing Management (analysis, planning and control).
Prentice ll. Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey., p.5.
LUMADEW, M., 2007. Consumers’Acceptability of Yema de Cacao BS Thesis,
Benguet State University.
MABESA, L.B. 1986. Sensory evaluation of foods: Principles and methods College
of Agriculture University of the Philippines at Los Bañ0s, College ,
Laguna: CRDL Printing press Makiling Subdivision Los Baños, Laguna.
MINOSA, M- GATCHALIAN. 1989. Sensory evaluation methods for quality
assessment
and development. University of the Philippines Diliman,
Quezon City. Published by: College of Home Economics University of the
Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Oregon STATE UNIVERSITY. 1998. http://food.oregonstate.edu/sensory/dena.html.
Retrieved August 8, 13 2007
O’MAHONY, M. 995 http://www.swan.ac.uk/cds/pdffiles/OIRSCHOT.pdf.
Retrieved August 31, 2007.
PAREDES, S., 2007, Consumers’ Perception on meat and vegetable- based Burger
BS Thesis, Benguet State University
REIDY, L.J. (n.d.) http://www.sweetmarias.com/article.sensory-evaluation.html.
Retrieved August 13, 2007
39
STANTON, W., 1977. Fundamentals of Marketing. Philippines Copyright. By
McGraw-Hill Inc. p.171- 172.
STONE ,H., 2006.Sensory Evaluation: Science and Mythology.
http://www.tragon.com/articles/sens_eval.html . Copyright: Tragon
Corporation365 Convention Way • Redwood City • California 94063-1402.
Retrieved October 13, 2007.
The GEORGE MATELJAN FOUNDATION 2001 2007
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=112#healthbenefi
ts. Retrieve August 20, 2007.
T. KINNEAR K. BERNHART, 1986, Principle of Marketing. Foreman and Company
United State of America., P. 106-107
40
QUESTIONNAIRE
Sensory Evaluation Sheet
Name (Optional) ______________________ Date __________________
Profession ___________________________ Age __________________
Address _____________________________ Product ________________
Instruction: Taste test the given samples and check how much you like or dislike
the products. Use the appropriate scale to show your attitude by checking the point in the
scale which best describes your feeling. Take a drink of water after each product tasted.
Hedonic Scaling
Formulation A
Rating Taste
Aroma/
Appearance/ Texture
General
Odor
color
(mouth
Acceptability
feel)
1. Like
Extremely
2. Like very
much
3. Like
moderately
4. Like slightly
5. Neither like or
dislike
6. Dislike
slightly
7. Dislike
moderately
8. Dislike very
much
9. Dislike
extremely
41
Formulation B
Rating Taste
Aroma/
Appearance/ Texture
General
Odor
color
(mouth feel) Acceptability
1. Like
Extremely
2. Like very
much
3. Like
moderately
4. Like slightly
5. Neither like or
dislike
6. Dislike
slightly
7. Dislike
moderately
8. Dislike very
much
9. Dislike
extremely
1. Price _________; ___________ Affordable; __________ Not Affordable
Suggested Price __________
* If the product will be available in the market at P ____ are you willing to buy?
____ Yes; ____ No
2. Is the size acceptable to you? ____ Yes; ____ No; If not what size do you like?
____ make it bigger; ____ smaller?
3. Choose packaging of the product ____ packaging A; ____ packaging B? If none what
do you like? Using
____; plane plastic/ cellophane ____; plastic cup
____; Styrofone cup ____; others Pls. specify?
Comments_______________________________________________________________
42
MARKET TESTING DATA SHEET
Outlet ________________
For retailers only.
DATE OF
QUANTITY
PRICE
SIZE/ NET WT. SALES
OBSERVATION
TURNOVER
P55
300
gms.
P55
300
gms
P55
300
gms
P55
300
gms
P55
300
gms
Price:
1. Is the price P55 affordable to you? ____Yes, ____ No. If yes, how many packs do you
want to buy?
____1 pck. ____ 2 pcks. ____ other please specify?
And how often do you want to buy? ____ everyday ____ twice a week, once a week,
____ other please specify?
2. Is the price P58 affordable to you? ____Yes, ____ No. If yes, how many packs do you
want to buy?
____1 pck. ____ 2 pcks. ____ other please specify?
And how often do you want to buy? ____ everyday ____ twice a week, once a week,
____ other please specify?
43
3. Is the price P60 affordable to you? ____Yes, ____ No. If yes, how many packs do you
want to buy?
____1 pck. ____ 2 pcks. ____ other please specify?
And how often do you want to buy? ____ everyday ____ twice a week, once a week,
____ other please specify?
Packaging:
1. Is the improved packaging acceptable to you? ____ yes, ____ No? If no ________ pls.
specify some medium of packaging to be use?
* Who has the higher of your customer or buyers of fish patties product? Pls. Check!
____ Students ____ Parents and other household consumers?
____ Yuppies (Single and employed)
* Are you willing to repeat the order? If yes how many pack/s ________ pls. specify?
Comments; ______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
44
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (T- TEST) COMPUTATION
1) One way score group [fweght=taste], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.36
1.1911236
50
Formulation
B
2.26
.87621636
50
Total
2.31
1.0415121
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.25
1
.25
0.23 (ns) 0.6336
Within
groups
107.14
98
1.09326531
Total
107.39
99
1.08474747
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 4.5026
Prob > chi2= 0.034
2) Oneway score group [fweght=aroma], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.34
.96065454
50
Formulation
B
2.3625
.78343208
50
Total
2.3538462 .85237051
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.015576923
1
.015576923 0.02 (ns)
0.8843
Within
groups
93.7075
128
.732089844
Total
93.7230769
129
.72653548
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 4.5026
Prob > chi2= 0.034
45
3) One way score group [fweght=appearance], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.46
.93043769
50
Formulation
B
2.4
.880663057
50
Total
2.43
.90179395
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.09
1
.09
0.11 (ns) 0.7412
Within
groups
80.42
98
.820612245
Total
80.51
99
.813232323
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 0.1467
Prob > chi2= 0.702
4) One-way score group [fweght=texture], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.38
1.027976
50
Formulation
B
2.46
1.1104329
50
Total
2.42
1.0653401
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.16
1
.16
0.14 (ns) 0.7093
Within
groups
112.2
98
1.14489796
Total
112.18
99
1.13494949
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 3.729
Prob > chi2= 0.053
46
5) Oneway score group [fweght= General Acceptability], tabulate nofreq
Summary of score
Compositions
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Obs.
Formulation
A
2.34
.93917028
50
Formulation
B
2.36
1.2414606
50
Total
2.35
.0952146
100
Analysis of Variance
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Prob > F
Between groups
.01
1
.01
0.01 (ns) 0.9278
Within
groups
118.75
98
1.21163265
Total
118.75
99
1.1994995
Bartlett’s test for equal variances:
chi2 (1) = 3.7289
Prob > chi2= 0.053
Document Outline
- Sensory Evaluation of Fish Patties in
La Trinidad, Benguet.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Rationale
- Statement of the Problem
- Hypothesis
- Objectives of the Study
- Importance of the Study
- Scope and Limitation
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Sensory Evaluation
- Perception
- Consumer Testing
- Acceptability
- Factors to Consider during Sensory Evaluation
- New Product
- Sensory Attributes of Food
- The Marketer
- Market Testing
- Definition of terms
- METHODOLOGY
- Locale and Time of the Study
- Respondents of the Study
- Data Collection
- Data Gathered
- Data Analysis
- RESULT AND DISCUSSION
- Product Description
- Age and Types of Respondents
- Sensory Evaluation of Fish Patties
- Acceptability as to Taste Evaluation
- Acceptability as to Appearance Evaluation
- Acceptability as to Aroma Evaluation
- Acceptability as to Texture Evaluation
- General Acceptability Evaluation of the Two Formulations
- Panel/ Evaluators Acceptability as to the Packaging of the Product
- Panelist Rating on the Given Sample Price
- Market Testing/ Acceptability of the Product(Chosen Formulation)
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Summary
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES