Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Thesis Manuscript
submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate School of Hospitality Management
Philippine Women’s University
Taft Avenue, Manila
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Culinary Arts
REDEN COSTA
April 2013
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Gourmet is a cultural ideal associated with the culinary arts of fine food
contrasting, often quite rich courses. The term and its associated practices are
usually used positively to describe people of refined taste and passion (McGrath,
textures and colors, the lasting, memorable effect it has on the diner, and there is
an element of striving for perfection that only comes with practice. One uses
color, texture, and taste. The ingredients are meant to impress so often they are
Food grown, cooked and eaten within a reasonable distance of where it’s
consumed always tastes better. Many wild edible plants are nutritionally rich and
homes. Apart from the variety which they add to the menu, they are valuable
to protein, mineral, vitamins, fiber and other nutrients which are usually in short
supply in daily diets. Besides, they add flavor, variety, taste, color and aesthetic
in developing countries like the Philippines (Faber, Venter and Benade, 2001),
with a total of 250 million children suffering from VAD and over 3 million
manifesting clinical signs. This is a serious public health problem in the low-
and eye health has been recognized as a critical factor in health and survival of
is 400 micrograms per day for 7-9 year old Filipino children (FNRI-DOST, 2002).
Males aged 19 to more than 65 years old have Vitamin A RENI of 550
micrograms per day, while females in the same age group have 500 micrograms
800 micrograms, while for lactating women the recommended vitamin A intake is
900 micrograms.
most households, people in developing countries still suffer from VAD. This may
3
be caused by lack of knowledge, lack of care and the apparently lower vitamin A
main course, soup, salad and dessert prepared with local wild greens. It is the
aim of this study to determine the effect of using alugbati, pako and pansit-
dishes are developed to produce food with superior sensory qualities and
For centuries, the greens have helped Filipinos endure through lean times,
and they still do today, but they are also a beloved food and a delicacy. Many
Filipinos keep a knife and a few plastic bags for the spontaneous gathering of
Wild greens form the cheapest source of nutrients. Wild greens also rank
among the world's most nutritionally potent superfoods (Afolayan and Jimoh,
2009; De Caluwé, 2010). Alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan are popular wild
greens of the Philippines with healing and therapeutic properties which help in
combating several diseases and provide valuable source of nutrients. These wild
4
greens have incredible energizing and healing powers and they are generally
free. Most Filipinos know these plants already and they are very easy to
brings numerous health benefits (Block, 1991). Wild greens are a source of
vitamins, folic acid, antioxidants, carotenoids and many other valuable chemicals
(Hasler, 2002; Pieroni et al., 2002; Tapsell et al., 2006). Wild greens may be a
particularly rich source of these compounds and are more likely to be free of
agricultural pollutants.
After being dismissed for many years, wild plants are now being used in
some of the best restaurants in the world and people travel long distances to
taste them. Wild plants are now celebrated, raised up to become stars of the new
cuisine (Irving, 2009). However, the culinary uses of wild edible greens that grow
in the Philippines such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan are still unknown in
Though many of the local wild greens are still unexplored in their culinary
potential, modern chefs around the world mainly use wild plants for their diverse
and interesting aromas. Incorporating wild greens in various cuisines would result
The researcher believes that this study would encourage chefs to use and
learn more about local wild edible greens that would help bring people into a
greater awareness of the wild ingredients available in the Philippines. This would
help foragers to communicate with chefs and chefs to exchange knowledge with
5
each other, as well as showing people that it is possible to use wild greens as
greens found in the environment will allow them to see it through different eyes:
one’s knowledge makes the natural world meaningful, and this meaningfulness
compels one to protect and preserve the larger system of which everybody is a
part.
The researcher likewise believes that the problem of having not enough
and individuals will reflect on their food preparation and consumption practices
and habits to eat healthy, thereby improving their overall quality of life.
As such, this study utilized local wild greens, namely: alugbati, pako and
This study will be conducted to develop gourmet dishes using local wild
greens.
a. general appearance,
b. color,
6
c. aroma,
d. texture, and
e. taste?
developed gourmet meal prepared using three local wild greens such
4. Are the nutritional contents of the most acceptable gourmet meal meet
Hypotheses
To answer the objectives of this study, the hypotheses that were tested
are:
developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati,
developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati,
panelist such as: a) trained panelists (culinary instructors), and b) experts (chefs)
gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and
pansit-pansitan.
comprising of a main course (chicken scallopini), clear soup, salad (green salad)
and desert (buco smoothies) which will be prepared using different formulations
of local wild greens. The wild greens that were utilized were alugbati, pako and
pansit-pansitan. The gourmet dishes that were tested with local wild greens
include chicken scallopine, clear soup, green salad and buco smoothies.
Cavite and 15 chefs in Cavite. These two groups of panelist evaluated the
sample gourmet dishes for general appearance, color, aroma, texture, taste and
overall acceptability. The 9- point hedonic scale was used to evaluate the
the researcher to find alternative ways of developing gourmet meal using local
of this study would expand the knowledge of faculty members and HRM students
Gourmet chefs. It is hoped that the results of the experiment will assist
chefs in finding the culinary potential of local wild greens and use them in the
kitchen.
gourmet dishes would hopefully help sustain the local economy and upholds the
Definition of Terms
the study, the following terms are defined operationally as they were used in this
study:
Blind test refer to food samples which are presented without any
Coding refers to the procedure wherein food samples are given a code
and tested with their identity unknown to the subjects in order to eliminate the
influences of the type of treatment used and product marking. The code can take
specialist technical knowledge and experience and who is responsible for testing
gourmet chefs who will evaluate the sensory and overall acceptability of gourmet
they are perceived by the senses. It is a subjective product examination using the
human senses. This will be performed by the participants to detect, identify, and
evaluate characteristics of the gourmet dishes using wild greens utilizing all of
Taste refers to the taste qualities, sweet, sour, salty and bitter. In principal
this means all gustatory, olfactory and haptic impressions that occur as a result
impressions. It includes the intensity to which the food taste and smell.
Wild greens are leafy greens collected from the wild and used as a
substitute for other vegetables eaten raw, boiled, cooked in casseroles, and as
herbs. For this study, wild greens will refer to alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan.
11
Chapter 2
research in the use of wild greens to various cuisines. Hence, the literature
related to local wild greens and studies on the use of wild greens in different
view the objectives set forth in this study, the relevant references available are
Alugbati
spinach, Climbing spinach (Eng.); and ‘Lok’uei’ or ‘luo kui shu’ (Chinese) is one
from India, it is usually found in settled areas, in hedges, old cultivated areas
also cultivated in tropical Asia, Africa and the Malaya (DTI, PCCARD and DOST,
2009).
Its leaves are somewhat fleshy, ovate or heart-shaped. The fruit is fleshy
and stalkless, which turn purple when mature. The young stems, shoots, and
leaves are usually blanched. The edible species Basella rubra has red flowers
12
and bright purple-red stem while Basella alba, which is more popular, has green
leaves and stems (DTI, PCCARD and DOST, 2009). Alugbati production in 2006
was 32,303 tons from 2,482 hectares. It is grown almost anywhere, but major
producers were Iloilo, Zamboanga del Norte and Negros Oriental (Bureau of
Varieties
There are three common types of alugbati: Basella alba with green stern
and oval to almost round leaves; Basella rubra with red stems and green, oval to
round leaves; and a third type, which is a hybrid of the two. The Institute of Plant
Breeding of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (IPB-UPLB) has released
two stopgap varieties in 1981 through its Germplasm Registration and Release
Alugbati has a pleasant, mild spinach flavor that some may find earthy. It
and stews. The purplish dye from the ripe fruit is used is used as food color and
as rouge for the face. The cooked roots are used to treat diarrhea, while cooked
leaves and stems are used as laxative. The flowers are used as antidote for
Per 100 grams edible portion, alugbati leaves contain the following:
Properties Amount
Water (g) 92.5
Energy (kcal) 23.0
Protein (g) 2.0
Fat (g) 0.3
Carbohydrates (g) 3.0
Crude Fiber (g) 0.9
Ash (g) 2.2
Calcium (mg) 128.0
Phosphorous (mg) 40.0
Iron (mg) 4.9
Beta-carotene (µg) 2735.0
Vitamin A (RE-µg) 456.0
Thiamine (mg) 0.04
Riboflavin (mg) 0.12
Niacin (mg) 0.50
Ascorbic acid (mg) 89.0
Pansit-pansitan
countries, and in Asia. The plant grows 15 to 45 cm, its shiny light-green leaves
are succulent, well-spaced, and heart shaped. This herb thrives in loose, humid
soils under the shade of trees, especially during rainy seasons, (dos Santos et
al., 2001).
14
Peperomia pellucida has been used for treating multitude of disease like
abdominal pain, gout, headache, renal disorders, acne, and abscess. It has been
essential oils of the plant, one study identified 71 compounds from the essential
styrenes, and a dimeric ArC2 compound or pellucidin A has been isolated. These
analgesic properties found in P. pellucida in crude form (dos Santos et al., 2001).
promoted by the Department of Health (DoH). This herb particularly used to treat
gout and arthritic conditions, this is also being advocated by the Philippine
washed and eaten as fresh salad. Taken as a salad, pansit-pansitan helps relive
cups of water) can also be made and taken orally - 1 cup in the morning and
another cup in the evening. It can be used as facial rinse for complexion
15
problems. It is also good for kidney problems as it cleanses the kidneys (dos
Properties Amount
Water (g) 97.2
Energy (kcal) 11.00
Protein (g) 0.5
Fat (g) 0.5
Carbohydrates (g) 1.1
Crude fiber (g) 0.7
Ash (g) 0.7
Calcium (mg) 94.0
Phosphorous (mg) 13.0
Iron (mg) 4.3
Beta-carotene (µg) 1250.0
Vitamin A (RE-µg) 208.0
Thiamin (mg) 0.01
Niacin (mg) 0.1
Ascorbic acid (mg) 2.0
Pako
Pako is part of the Athyrium genus and its scientific name is Athyrium
fronds. It is an edible fern found throughout Asia and Oceania. It is probably the
It is a terrestrial fern with a creeping rhizome and stout black roots on the
undersurface. The rootstocks are stout, the caudex erect, woody thickened,
16
bearing many blank, wiry roots, and the tip clothed with brown linear scales. The
stipes are green and somewhat smooth, 20 to 50 cm long. The fronds are 2- or
lanceolate, 2 to 3 cm long and rather coarsely toothed. The sori are superficial,
Variety
The young fronds of this fern are much desired and are eaten in all parts
of the country, either raw or cooked. They are used as a leafy vegetable, or as an
ingredient in salads or stews and they are even pickled. Pako is a fair source of
calcium, a very excellent source of phosphorous and a good source of iron and
Decoction of the rhizomes and young leaves, simple or sugared, used for
hemoptysis and coughs. In India, boiled young fronds taken with boiled rice as
vegetables for laxative effect. In gardening, wiry roots sold as "osmunda roots"
for growing orchids, esp. Cattleyas. Mature fronds used as fodder in livestock.
Per 100 grams edible portion, pako leaves contain the following:
Properties Amount
Water (g) 89.9
Energy (kcal) 44.0
Protein (g) 3.8
Fat (g) 1.7
Carbohydrates (g) 3.3
Crude Fiber (g) 1.3
Ash (g) 1.3
Calcium (mg) 36.0
Phosphorous (mg) 76.0
Iron (mg) 3.0
Beta-carotene (µg) 3100.0
Vitamin A (RE-µg) 517.0
Riboflavin (mg) 0.1
Niacin (mg) 1.9
Ascorbic acid (mg) 10.0
humans, because the body cannot produce it (Tompson et al., 2005). According
including retinoids (animal foods) and carotenoids (plant foods). There are three
active forms of vitamin A in the body, namely retinol, retinal and retinoic acid.
al., 1999).
performs many essential functions in the human body. It helps to keep all the
cells on the inner and outer surface of the body healthy so that it is difficult for
microorganisms to enter the body. Vitamin A also plays a major overall role in the
body’s immune system. The eyes need vitamin A in order to function properly, to
maintain their health, and to see in dim light. Thus, vitamin A plays an importan
role in maintaining good eyesight (Tompson et al., 2005; Ensminger et al., 1999;
Hands, 2000; Reddy, 1999). Vitamin A can be obtained from foods naturally rich
preceded by night blindness (XN) and Bitot's spots (X1B). These and other
affects 2.8 to 3 million children under five years of age. Vitamin A is also of great
importance for growth and development of bone tissue, normal function of skin
19
and mucous membranes, normal reproductive health and in the immune defense
(Ross, 1992). The non-ocular manifestations are largely hidden from view and do
not provide a ready basis for specific clinical diagnosis. However, subclinical
deficiency affects an estimated 251 million children under five years of age. The
and young child mortality concluded that improving a low to marginal vitamin A
status will reduce the risk of death due to infectious diseases by 23% (Beaton et
al., 1993).
Gourmet
ingredient that one can add to turn a simple dish into a gourmet one. There is
certainly no one way to cook a standard meal so that it becomes gourmet. There
are many methods, many styles, and many recipes that one can use to make a
Brinlee (u.d.) stated that many people associate gourmet food with great
taste. However, taste is not everything there are other factors that make a food
gourmet. One of the things that make a food a gourmet food is meticulous
order to get it just right. Many gourmet foods are designed to be served under the
20
(Brinlee, u.d.).
Quality and price of the food is also a big factor in what classifies food as
gourmet. Certain foods have always been more costly than others. That is
because these foods are high in quality and more expensive (Brinlee, u.d.).
But preparation and quality are not the only things that make a food a
gourmet food. Ingredients play a big role. Generally, the cook is going to need
more than a dash of salt and pepper to turn a simple dish into a gourmet dish. It
all depends on what kind of cuisine one is preparing. Some of these ingredients
might not be used more than once or twice a year. They can also be quite
2012).
The business of gourmet cuisine is more than just cooking a dish and
slapping it down in a big mess on a plate. Many cooks and critics view gourmet
food as an art. It is about creating something unique that is not seen at the dinner
table every other night. It is about putting one’s soul into what he cooks. Gourmet
dish at some of the finer restaurants is often presented on a plate with a bit of
artistic flair. When preparing gourmet food, it is often like creating a masterpiece
work of art that appeals to one’s vision as well as one’s taste (Kendrick, 2012).
Sensory Evaluation
consumer demands and introducing new and improved products (Stone and
Sidel, 2004).
into two categories of testing: objective and subjective. In objective testing, the
products are measured. The power of sensory evaluation is realized when these
two elements are combined to reveal insights into the way in which sensory
benefits.
1991). These human subjects are trained to describe the complete profile of food
limits for sensory specifications used during quality testing (MacFie, 2007).
substandard products are not released onto the market. For many products, the
sensory properties deteriorate ahead of microbial quality and so, in tandem with
microbial tests, sensory testing can be used to determine shelf life and product
the data to support marketing claims such as ‘best ever’, ‘new creamier’, and
‘most preferred’. It can also ensure that sensory properties work in synergy with
consumer behavior.
sensory perception and the variations that exist within the population (MacFie,
2007).
is crucial to ensure that the sensory professional has the necessary technical
General Appearance
used to evaluate food. Overall appearance includes all visible sensory attributes
such as color, size and shape as well as surface texture (Cardello, 1994).
frequently this is the only cue available, especially at the moment of purchase
(Schröder, 2003). Flavor involves sensory attributes like taste, specific flavor,
(Shröder, 2003).
Aroma
Aroma is the smell that emanates from food. Along with appearance,
texture, flavor and taste, aroma is one of the five dimensions used to evaluate a
product. Aroma is the odor of a food, resulting from the process that involves the
course of volatiles through the nasal passages located in the nose, when a
overall appreciation of food (Taylor and Linforth, 1996). Volatile compounds that
are perceived by the odors receptors either directly through the nose (nasal
Texture
Texture is another important parameter which affects shelf life of food and
physical sensation in the mouth (hard, soft, crisp, moist, dry), the consumer uses
these sensory attributes as reference parameters for judging food quality (fresh,
25
stale, tender, ripe). Texture is referred as the tactile feel properties, measured as
surface of the skin of the hand, lips, or tongue (Piggott, 1988). Overall liking can
Taste
conjunction with the sense of smell. The non-volatile compounds that are
perceived by the tongue are called taste compounds (sweet, sour, salty, bitter,
astringent and pungent) (Frank et al., 1989). The interaction between substances
that contribute to the taste of food, e.g. acids or salts is very important for the
depending on the synergy between taste and aroma (Pomeranz and Meloan,
1994).
underutilized leafy vegetables to enrich routine diets for nutrition security. Five
evaluated for sensory characteristics using nine point hedonic scales by 10 semi
trained judges. The results showed that coconut chutney with sambar soppu
26
scored highest for all sensory attributes followed by bisebilebath and little millet
upma with drumstick leaves and the least scores were obtained for barnyard
and carrot). To evaluate the products for sensory attributes Hopkin’s seven point
scale was used. The study revealed that the most acceptable level for prantha
with radish and cauliflower greens was 30 percent whereas; in case of carrot and
turnip greens it was 50 per cent. The respective scores for overall acceptability
ranged from 5.42 (cauliflower greens) to 6.02 (radish greens). Bhurji prepared by
using cauliflower greens scored highest (6.08). Puri with turnip and carrot greens
was scored 5.54 and 6.52 at 50 and 60 per cent incorporation respectively.
30 and 40 percent with scores 5.78 and 5.52 respectively. Pakora prepared by
incorporating cauliflower and radish leaves at 40 per cent was best acceptable
varieties of betel leaves. Three recipes namely coconut burfi, cutlet and muthia
were developed and the recipes prepared from spinach served as control. Sixty
sweet betel leaves was given high scores ranging from 4.17 (color) to 4.34
(taste) on five point scale followed by kapuri betel leaves (3.61 to 4.17) and
27
bangla betel leaves (2.54 to 3.50) respectively. Burfi with spinach received high
scores of 4.5. Cutlets prepared from kapuri betel leaves (3.83 to 4.49) were
highly acceptable and very close to spinach cutlets (4.17 to 4.61) for all sensory
4.34) and bangla betel leaves (2.45 to 4.17). Muthia with betel leaves and control
showed significant difference for their overall acceptability (t = 3.1, P<0.01 for
spinach versus sweet; t = 2.2, P<0.05 for spinach versus kapuri and t = 9.2, P<
Synthesis
The literatures contained in this chapter indicate the description, uses and
nutritional values of using wild greens as food and medicine. Likewise, the
studies discussed on the literature review have outlined different ways of utilizing
Conceptual Framework
Chicken
Theoretical
Standard recipes scallopini
for Gourmet Meal nutrient content
Ingredients analysis of the Clear soup
Processes developed
Green salad
Cooking gourmet meal
technologies based on RENI Buco
smoothies
Test for
significant
differences in
sensory ratings
and overall
acceptability
FEEDBACK
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the research design, the data collection, and the
Research Design
manipulates one or more variables, and controls and measures any change in
within the same group of participants. A within subjects design is often called a
In this study, participants were tested under all experimental lots to study
the effect of three different local wild greens on the sensory characteristics,
Panel Selection
Two groups of panelist were utilized for this study: the trained laboratory
panel and the expert sensory panel. They were preselected on the basis of good
Fifteen HRM faculty members from Cavite State University, Main Campus
competency that comprised the qualification for commercial cooking. They were
chosen since they have knowledge and experience in food production and
sensory panel. The chefs that were used as the expert sensory panel in the
31
panel, with the assumption that they had more formal training on what to look for
Methods
This study developed a gourmet meal that utilized three local wild greens
experimental lots and a control. This study determined which among the three
local wild greens are best suited in the development of the gourmet dishes.
Gourmet
Experimental Lot
Dish
Lot 0 (control) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Chicken scallopini Without wild 300 g pako 450 g alugbati 950 g pansit-
green pansitan
Green salad 250 g lettuce 350 g pako 380 g alugbati 800 g pansit-
pansitan
Ingredients
The following are the ingredients and procedure in the production of the
A. Chicken Scallopini
scallopini/?scale=6&ismetric=0
Experimental Lot
Ingredients (in grams)
Lot 0 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
6 skinless, boneless chicken breast 600 600 600 600
halves
Wild green (alugbati/pako/pansit- 0 300 450 950
pansitan)
Cloves garlic, pressed 6 6 6 6
Butter, softened 170 170 170 170
All-purpose flour 187 187 187 187
Salt and ground black pepper to taste 10 10 10 10
Sliced mushrooms 300 300 300 300
Capers, or to taste 20 20 20 20
Lemon juice 32 32 32 32
White wine 90 90 90 90
Chicken-flavored demi-glace, or to 90 90 90 90
taste
Chopped fresh parsley, or to taste 10 10 10 10
6 lemon slices 30 30 30 30
Preparation of chicken cutlets - In a small bowl, stir together the garlic and butter
until well combined. Set aside. Place a chicken breast half on a work surface with
the thick side facing to the right, and place the left hand down on the chicken breast.
Using a very sharp knife, carefully cut the chicken breast from the thick side to about
1/2 inch from the edge of the thin side, in a horizontal cut. Open the cut chicken
breast and spread it out like an open book. Using a meat mallet, gently pound the
butterflied chicken breast out until it's an even thickness.
Place the flour into a shallow dish, and dredge each chicken breast on both sides
with flour. Melt the garlic butter in a large skillet over medium heat until it stops
foaming, and cook each chicken breast until golden brown on both sides, 6 to 8
minutes per side. Sprinkle each breast with salt and pepper. Remove the chicken
breasts to a platter, and keep warm.
Cook and stir the mushrooms in the same skillet as the chicken until the mushrooms
have absorbed the remaining butter in the skillet and have begun to turn brown at
the edges. Stir in wild greens, capers, lemon juice, white wine, and chicken demi-
glace, and stir to combine. Reduce to a simmer. Adjust salt and pepper again, and
stir the parsley into the sauce.
Remove the chicken breasts to plates, and serve the sauce over the chicken.
Garnish each serving with a lemon slice.
B. Clear Soup
Source: http://localfoods.about.com/od/winter/r/CauliflowerSoup.htm
Experimental Lot
Ingredients
(in grams)
Lot 0 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Cauliflower, chopped 250 150 100 50
Wild green, chopped 0 250 250 550
Butter 45 45 45 45
Onion, roughly chopped 150 150 150 150
Salt 3 3 3 3
Garlic, chopped 12 12 12 12
Chicken or vegetable broth 400 400 400 400
Freshly ground white pepper 1 1 1 1
Freshly grated nutmeg 1 1 1 1
Finely chopped parsley 3 3 3 3
In a large pot over medium heat, melt 15 g. butter. Add onions and salt. Cook,
stirring occasionally and adjusting heat so onions are cooking but not
browning, until onions look starchy and a bit creamy, about 5 minutes. Add
garlic and cook until fragrant, about 1 minute.
Add cauliflower (and/or wild greens), stir to combine, cover and cook 3
minutes. Add broth, bring to a boil, reduce heat to maintain a steady simmer
and cook until cauliflower is tender to the bite, about 10 minutes.
Purée soup with a hand-held blender or, whirl in batches in a blender or food
processor until smooth.
Add milk and cook over medium-low heat until hot. Taste and add more salt,
pepper, and/or nutmeg to taste.
Add the parsley butter swirl, melt remaining 30 g butter and stir in parsley.
C. Green Salad
Source: http://www.simply-salads.com/cucumber-salad-recipes.html
Experimental Lot
Ingredients
(in grams)
Lot 0 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Lettuce, chopped 250 150 100 50
Wild green, chopped 0 350 380 800
Cucumber 300 300 300 300
Carrot 150 150 150 150
Tomatoes, quartered 250 250 250 250
Canned tuna, drained and flaked 320 320 320 320
Hard-boiled egg, sliced 65 65 65 65
Salt and pepper 12 12 12 12
Vinaigrette 5 5 5 5
Croutons 50 50 50 50
D. Buco Smoothies
Source: http://dishismylife.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/buco-
smoothies/
Experimental Lot
Ingredients
(in grams)
Lot 0 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Wild green, mashed 0 15 12.5 80
Buco meat, shredded 186 186 186 186
Coco sap 15 15 15 15
Evaporated milk 120 120 120 120
Crushed ice 250 250 250 250
Sensory Evaluation
meal utilizing three local wild greens such as alugbati, pansit-pansitan and pako
separate sensory testing for trained panel and expert panel were conducted
Clean and sterile utensils will be provided for serving food samples.
Samples will be coded with numbers and will be served individually. Food
in white glass containers of same size and shape. The evaluation will be carried
out in a quiet, odor-free room maintaining ideal conditions for testing. Each
panelist will be given a score card shown in Appendix A and will be asked to
evaluate the samples for different attributes viz. general appearance, color,
39
texture, aroma, taste and overall acceptability. A separate score card will be
Basic sensory method for food evaluation will be used. Hedonic test will
A 7-point hedonic scale will be used in the sensory evaluation and overall
7 – Very Good
6 – Moderately Good
5 – Good
4 – Fair
3 – Very Fair
2 – Poor
1 – Very Poor
the theoretical nutrient content analysis of each of the ingredients included in the
preparation of chicken scallopini, clear soup, green salad and buco smoothies.
40
Data Collection
approval is granted, informed consent will obtained from target panel members.
Statistical Treatment
descriptive variables. The analysis of data will be done using t-test and F –
difference among the food samples in terms of all the parameters that will be
measured such as: general appearance, color, texture, taste, nutrient content
difference between the ratings of two groups of panelist with regard to sensory
characteristics and overall acceptability of the food samples prepared using three
Chapter 4
gourmet meal using different formulations of wild green; the comparison in the
local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan; the comparison in
the ratings of the two groups of panelist such as: a) trained panelists (culinary
overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal prepared with three local
wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan; the nutritional contents
Nutrient Intake (RENI) for Filipino adults; and the direct material cost in the
formulations of wild green was evaluated by trained laboratory panel and expert
A. Clear Soup
summarized in Tables 1 to 5.
Scale:
As shown in Table 1, the highest weighted mean of 5.8 was noted in the
control (T0) or clear soup with 250 g cauliflower indicating that the general
panelists. This was followed by Lot 3 or clear soup with 550 g pansit-pansitan
(x̅ = 5.1667) indicating that it was “slightly acceptable” to the panelists. Similarly,
clear soup in Lot 2 (250 g alugbati) and in Lot 1 (250 g pako) were “slightly
The weighted mean scores by experimental lot showed that clear soup
without wild greens (T0) recorded the highest rating in general appearance while
clear soup with 250 g pako (Lot 1) had the lowest rating in general appearance.
Results suggest that clear soup without wild greens was rated more favorably in
Std. Color
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower 30 5.8000 .76112 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 250 g pako 30 4.8333 .94989 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati 30 5.1333 1.33218 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.1667 1.39168 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
With regards to color of clear soup (Table 2), the control (Lot 0) posted the
highest weighted mean of 5.8 indicating that the color of clear soup with 250 g
Lot 2 and Lot 3) were only “slightly acceptable” to panelists as supported by the
weighted means of 5.1667 (Lot 3), 5.1333 (Lot 2), and 4.8333 (Lot 1),
44
respectively. Findings reveal that clear soup without wild greens had more
Std. Aroma
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower 30 5.8000 .76112 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 250 g pako 30 4.8333 .94989 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati 30 5.1333 1.33218 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.1667 1.39168 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
Data on Table 3 show that with regards to aroma, clear soup from the
control (Lot 0) recorded the highest weighted mean of 5.8 suggesting that the
aroma of clear soup with 250 g cauliflower was “moderately acceptable” to panel
members while the aromas of clear soup from Lot 3 (x̅ = 5.1667), Lot 2 (x̅ =
5.1333) and Lot 1 (x̅ = 4.8333), were “slightly acceptable” to the panel members,
respectively. Results indicate that clear soup without wild greens had more
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower 30 5.8000 .92476 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 250 g pako 30 5.0333 1.09807 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati 30 4.9333 1.14269 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.3000 1.26355 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
As shown in the table above, the texture of clear soup from the control
(T0) was “moderately acceptable” to the panelists. On the other hand, the
textures of clear soup on Lot 3 (x̅ = 5.30), Lot 1 (x̅ = 5.0333) and Lot 2 (x̅ =
4.9333) were only “slightly acceptable” to the panel members. This indicates that
clear soup without wild greens were more acceptable in texture than clear soup
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower 30 5.9333 1.04826 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 250 g pako 30 5.1333 1.19578 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati 30 5.2667 1.08066 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.3000 1.39333 Moderately Acceptable
Scale:
Table 5 shows that the taste of clear soup from the control (T0) had the
highest weighted mean of 5.9333 followed by clear soup produced with 550 g
pansit-pansitan (Lot 3). This means that clear soup from the control and Lot 3
other hand, the taste of clear soup on Lot 3 (x̅ = 5.30) and Lot 1 (x̅ = 5.1333)
were only “slightly acceptable” to the panel members. Findings suggest that clear
soup produced in the control (T0) and with 550 g pansit-pansitan (Lot 3) had the
most acceptable taste while the lowest rated in terms of taste was clear soup
with pako.
47
B. Chicken Scallopini
Scale:
in the control (T0) or chicken scallopini without wild green indicating that the
300 g pako (x̅ = 5.2333) indicating that it was “slightly acceptable” to the
panelists. Similarly, chicken scallopini in Lot 2 (450 g alugbati) and in Lot 3 (950
The results showed that chicken scallopini without wild greens (T0)
recorded the highest rating in general appearance while chicken scallopini with
wild greens were rated only as “slightly acceptable” in general appearance by the
panel members. Results suggest that chicken scallopini without wild green was
rated more favorably in general appearance than chicken scallopini with wild
greens.
Std. Color
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 5.6000 1.24845 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 300 g pako 30 5.3000 1.02217 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati 30 5.0667 1.25762 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.1000 .99481 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
With regards to color of chicken scallopini (Table 7), the control (Lot 0)
posted the highest weighted mean of 5.6 followed by Lot 1 (300 g pako)
indicating that the colors of chicken scallopini in the control and Lot 1 were
Lot 2 and Lot 3, were only “slightly acceptable” to panelists as supported by the
49
weighted means of 5.0667 and 5.10, respectively. Findings indicate that similar
ratings in the color of chicken scallopini were found on chicken scallopini without
Std. Aroma
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 5.9000 .99481 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 300 g pako 30 5.3333 .84418 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati 30 5.4333 1.22287 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.1000 1.32222 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
Table 3 shows that with regards to aroma, chicken scallopini in the control
(Lot 0), Lot 1, and Lot 2 had ratings of “moderately acceptable” aroma as
supported by weighted means of 5.90, 5.33, and 5.43, respectively. This means
that chicken scallopini without wild green (T0), with 300 g pako (T1) and with 450
In contrast, the lowest weighted mean of 5.1 was recorded in Lot 3 (950 g
pansit-pansitan) suggesting that the aroma of chicken scallopini in Lot 3 was only
“slightly acceptable” to the panel members. Results imply that chicken scallopini
50
with 300 g pako (Lot 1) and with 450 g alugbati (Lot 2) had similar aroma with the
control.
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 5.6000 1.06997 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 300 g pako 30 5.1667 .94989 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati 30 5.2667 1.17248 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.2000 1.06350 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
As shown in Table 9, the texture of chicken scallopini from the control (T0)
had the highest weighted mean of 5.6 suggesting that it was “moderately
acceptable” to the panelists. On the other hand, the textures of chicken scallopini
on Lot 3 (x̅ = 5.20), Lot 2 (x̅ = 5.2667) and Lot 1 (x̅ = 5.1667) were only “slightly
acceptable” to the panel members. This indicates that chicken scallopini without
wild greens had more acceptable texture than chicken scallopini that utilized wild
greens.
51
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 6.0333 .99943 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 300 g pako 30 4.8333 1.23409 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati 30 4.9333 .98027 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.2667 1.36289 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
Table 10 shows that the taste of chicken scallopini from the control (T0)
had the highest weighted mean of 6.033 suggesting that it was “moderately
acceptable” to the panelists. The remaining experimental lots such as Lot 3 (x̅ =
5.2667), Lot 2 (x̅ = 4.9333), and Lot 1(x̅ = 4.8333) were only “slightly acceptable”
to the panelists.
This means that chicken scallopini from the control were rated highest in
terms of taste compared to chicken scallopini with wild greens. Hence, chicken
scallopini without wild green had the most acceptable taste while chicken
scallopini with wild green were rated lower in taste by the panelists.
52
C. Green Salad
Scale:
As shown in Table 16, the highest weighted mean of 6.1 was recorded in
the control (T0) or green salad with 250 g lettuce indicating that the general
panelists. This was followed by Lot 1 or green salad with 350 g pako (x̅ = 5.8333)
green salad in Lot 2 (380 g alugbati) and in Lot 3 (800 g pansit-pansitan) were
4.80, respectively.
53
The results suggest that green salad with and without wild greens were
“moderately acceptable”.
Std. Color
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce 30 5.7667 1.10433 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 350 g pako 30 5.5333 1.50249 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati 30 5.5000 1.27982 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.4333 1.07265 Moderately Acceptable
Scale:
With regards to color of green salad, all the experimental lots including the
control (Lot 0) were “moderately acceptable to the panel members. The highest
weighted of 5.7667 was noted in the control (Lot 0= 250 g lettuce) followed by Lot
1 (350 g pako) with weighted mean of 5.5333. The colors of green salad in Lot 2
Results revealed that the color of green salad were similar across
experimental lots. This means that green salad with or without wild greens had
Std. Aroma
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce 30 6.0000 1.17444 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 350 g pako 30 5.4667 1.38298 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati 30 5.4333 1.10433 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.8000 1.18613 Moderately Acceptable
Scale:
Table 18 shows that with regards to aroma, green salad produced in all
evidenced by the weighted means of 6.0, 5.8, and 5.46, and 5.43 for Lot 0, Lot
3, Lot 1 and Lot 2, respectively. This means that green salad with or without wild
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce 30 6.0667 1.01483 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 350 g pako 30 5.8000 1.24291 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati 30 5.6000 1.30252 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.5667 1.19434 Moderately Acceptable
Scale:
Data on Table 19 shows that the textures of green salads across all
weighted mean of 6.0667 was noted in the control (T0) followed by Lot 1 (x̅ =
5.80), Lot 2 (x̅ = 5.60) and Lot 3 (x̅ = 5.5667). This indicates that green salads
with and without wild greens had similar ratings in texture across treatment.
56
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce 30 6.2000 1.03057 Highly Acceptable
Lot 1 = 350 g pako 30 5.7000 1.05536 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati 30 5.4000 1.16264 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.3667 1.18855 Moderately Acceptable
Scale:
As shown in Table 20 the taste of green salad from the control (T0) had
the highest weighted mean of 6.2 suggesting that it was “highly acceptable” to
the panelists. The remaining experimental lots such as Lot 1 (x̅ = 5.70), Lot 2 (x̅ =
5.40), and Lot 3(x̅ = 5.3667) were “moderately acceptable” to the panelists.
Data suggest that green salad from the control or with 250 g lettuce was
rated highest in terms of taste compared to green salad with wild greens. Hence,
green salad without wild green had the most acceptable taste while green salad
D. Buco Smoothies
Scale:
The table above shows that the highest weighted mean of 5.7667 was
recorded in the control (T0) or buco smoothies without wild green indicating that
the general appearance of buco smoothies in the control (Lot 0) was “moderately
greens, on the other hand, were only “slightly acceptable” in general appearance.
The results imply that buco smoothies without wild greens or the control
Std. Color
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 5.8000 1.09545 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 15 g pako 30 5.0000 1.23176 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati 30 5.0667 1.28475 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.1333 .97320 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
Table 22 shows that the highest weighted mean of 5.1 was recorded in
the control (T0) or buco smoothies without wild green indicating that the color of
On the other hand, the remaining experimental lots prepared with wild greens
The results suggest that buco smoothies without wild greens or the
control had more favorable ratings in color compared to buco smoothies with wild
greens.
59
Std. Aroma
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 5.9667 1.35146 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 15 g pako 30 5.4333 1.22287 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati 30 4.8333 1.01992 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.0667 1.38796 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
without wild green) and in Lot 1 (15 g pako) were rated as “moderately
5.4333, respectively. On the other hand, buco smoothies produced in Lot 2 (12.5
by the panel members as supported by the weighted means of 4.833 and 5.0667,
respectively.
Findings indicate that the aroma of buco smoothies in Lot 0 and Lot 1
were rated highest by the panel members. This also imply that the aroma of buco
smoothies without wild green and with 15 g pako were generally the same. In
contrast, the lowest rated buco smoothies in terms of aroma was prepared with
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 5.8667 1.19578 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 15 g pako 30 5.3000 1.02217 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati 30 5.2000 1.29721 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan 30 5.5000 1.00858 Moderately Acceptable
Scale:
wild green (Lot 0), with 15 g pako (Lot 1) and with 80 g pansit-pansitan (Lot 3)
5.8667 was noted in the control (T0) followed by Lot 3 (x̅ = 5.50) and Lot 1 (x̅ =
5.30). The lowest rated buco smoothies in terms of texture was recorded in Lot 2
The results indicate that buco smoothies without wild green (control), buco
smoothies prepared with 12.5 g alugbati or Lot 2 had the lowest rating.
61
Std. Texture
Treatment N Mean
Deviation Interpretation
Lot 0 = without wild green 30 6.2000 1.12648 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 1 = 15 g pako 30 5.4333 1.33089 Moderately Acceptable
Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati 30 4.7333 1.28475 Slightly Acceptable
Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan 30 4.7667 1.10433 Slightly Acceptable
Scale:
As shown in Table 20 the taste of buco smoothies in the control (T0) and
the weighted mean of 6.2 and 5.4333, respectively. The remaining experimental
lots such as buco smoothies in Lot 2 (x̅ = 4.7333) and Lot 3 (x̅ = 4.7667) had
Data suggest that the taste of buco smoothies prepared without wild green
contrast, the taste of buco smoothies with 12.5 g alugbati had the lowest rating in
taste.
62
characteristics of the developed gourmet meal using local wild greens across
Fr p-
Parameter N df Decision Interpretation
value value
General
30 3 12.149** 0.007 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Appearance
Color 30 3 15.397** 0.002 Reject Ho Highly Significant
aroma (Fr = 20.904, p = >.001), and taste (Fr = 12.041, p = 0.007) of clear soup
the overall acceptability of clear soup across treatment (Fr = 10.765, p = 0.013).
This indicates that the null hypothesis of no significant differences in the sensory
63
taste prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. Likewise, the null
clear soup across treatment. The computed Fr of 8.457 was not significant at 5
in the textures of clear soup prepared with three local wild greens was accepted.
Fr p-
Parameter N df Decision Interpretation
value value
General
30 2 35.656** 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Appearance
Color 30 2 7.068ns 0.070 Accept Ho Not significant
the general appearance (Fr = 35.656, p = > 0.001), taste (Fr = 17.019, p =
taste prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. Likewise, the null
On the other hand, no significant difference was found in the color (Fr =
7.068, p = 0.070) and texture (Fr = 6.6, p = 0.086) of chicken scallopini across
treatment. Hence, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the color and
texture of chicken scallopini prepared with three local wild greens was accepted.
Fr p-
Parameter N df Decision Interpretation
value value
General
30 2 17.205** 0.001 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Appearance
Color 30 2 3.197ns 0.362 Accept Ho Not significant
general appearance (Fr = 17.205, p = 0.001) and taste (Fr = 17.675, p = 0.001),
of green salad across experimental lots while significant difference was found in
the aroma of green salad across treatment (Fr = 8.392, p = 0.039). This indicates
of green salad in terms of general appearance, aroma and taste prepared with
On the other hand, no significant difference was found in the color (Fr =
3.197, p = 0.362), texture (Fr = 6.518, p = 0.089) and overall acceptability (Fr =
3.367, p = 0.338) of green salad across treatment. Hence, the null hypothesis of
no significant difference in the color and texture of green salad prepared with
three local wild greens was accepted. Likewise, the null hypothesis of no
Fr p-
Parameter N df Decision Interpretation
value value
General
30 2 19.279** 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant
Appearance
Color 30 2 10.394* 0.015 Reject Ho Significant
Fr values in terms of general appearance (Fr = 19.279, p = > 0.001), color (Fr =
10.394, p = 0.015), aroma (Fr = 18.036, p = >.001), texture (Fr = 4.004, p =.261),
and taste (Fr = 25.972, p = >0.001) were significant at five percent level.
Likewise, highly significant difference was found in the overall acceptability (Fr =
27.173, p = > 0.001) of buco smoothies across experimental lots. The results
wild greens.
Difference in the Ratings of the Two Groups of Panelist such as: a) Trained
Gourmet Meal Prepared with Three Local Wild Greens such as Alugbati,
Vitamin A Content of the Most Acceptable Gourmet Meal based on RENI for
Filipino Adults
The vitamin A contents of the most acceptable gourmet meal such as:
clear soup, chicken scallopini, green salad and buco smoothies prepared with
Table 31. Vitamin A content of clear soup prepared with 250 g alugbati (Lot 2)
Total Vit. A
Quantity Vit. A Content
Ingredients Content
(in grams) (per 100 g)
(µg RE)
Cauliflower, chopped 100 8 8.00
Alugbati, chopped 250 456 1140.00
Butter 45 411 184.95
Onion, roughly chopped 150 Tr Tr
Salt 3 0 0
Garlic, chopped 12 0 0
Chicken or vegetable broth 400 - -
Freshly ground white pepper 1 Tr Tr
Freshly grated nutmeg 1 0 0
Finely chopped parsley 3 258 7.74
Except for the control (Lot 0), the most acceptable clear soup based on
the findings of the study was clear soup prepared with 250 g alugbati (Lot 2).
Table 31 shows that the vitamin A content of clear soup prepared with 250 g
alugbati (Lot 2) totaled to 1340.69 µg. The recommended vitamin A for male and
female adults from age 19 to 65+ was 550 µg and 500 µg, respectively.
Comparing the total vitamin A content of clear soup to the recommended vitamin
A, it can be said that the clear soup prepared with 250 g alugbati (Lot 2) more
Table 32. Vitamin A content of chicken scallopini prepared with 950 g pansit-
pansitan (Lot 3)
Total Vit. A
Quantity Vit. A Content
Ingredients Content
(in grams) (per 100 g)
(µg RE)
6 skinless, boneless chicken 600 31 186.0
breast halves
Pansit-pansitan 950 208 1,976.0
Cloves garlic, pressed 6 0 0
Butter, softened 170 411 698.7
All-purpose flour 187 0 0
Salt and ground black pepper to 0 0
taste 10
Sliced mushrooms 300 0 0
Capers, or to taste 20 138 27.6
Lemon juice 32 Tr Tr
White wine 90 0 0
Chicken-flavored demi-glace, or 90 27 24.3
to taste
Chopped fresh parsley, or to 10 258 25.8
taste
6 lemon slices 30 Tr Tr
Table 32 continued…
With regards to main course, except for the control (Lot 0), chicken
scallopini prepared with 950 g pansit-pansitan (Lot 3) was the most acceptable
µg. The recommended vitamin A for male and female adults from age 19 to 65+
was 550 µg and 500 µg, respectively. This means that the total vitamin A content
of chicken scallopini more than meet the recommended vitamin A intake for
Filipino adults.
71
Table 33. Vitamin A content of green salad prepared with 350 g pako (Lot 1)
Total Vit. A
Quantity Vit. A Content
Ingredients Content
(in grams) (per 100 g)
(µg RE)
Lettuce, chopped 150 300 450.0
Pako, chopped 350 517 1,809.5
Cucumber 300 Tr Tr
Carrot 150 1668 2,502.0
Tomatoes, quartered 250 63 157.5
Canned tuna, drained and 320 0 0
flaked
Hard-boiled egg, sliced 65 89 57.9
Salt and pepper 12 0 0
Vinaigrette 5 0 0
Croutons 50 7.5 3.8
Except for the control (Lot 0), green salad prepared with 350 g pako (Lot
33, the vitamin A content of green salad prepared with 350 g pako (Lot 1) totaled
to 4980.6 µg. The recommended vitamin A for male and female adults from age
19 to 65+ was 550 µg and 500 µg, respectively. This means that the total vitamin
A content of green salad more than meet the recommended vitamin A intake for
Filipino adults.
72
Table 34. Vitamin A content of buco smoothies prepared with 15 g pako (Lot 1)
Total Vit. A
Quantity Vit. A Content
Ingredients Content
(in grams) (per 100 g)
(µg RE)
Pako, mashed 15 517 77.6
Buco meat, shredded 186 0 0
Coco sap 15 0 0
Evaporated milk 120 116 139.2
Crushed ice 250 0 0
Buco smoothies prepared with 15 g pako (Lot 1) was the most acceptable
formulation across experimental lots. Table 34 shows that the vitamin A content
of buco smoothies prepared with 15 g pako (Lot 1) totaled to 216.75 µg. This
level of vitamin A did not meet the recommended vitamin A for male and female
adults from age 19 to 65+ which were 550 µg and 500 µg, respectively. However,
it should be noted that all other dishes included in the gourmet meal more than
meet the recommended vitamin A for Filipino adults. Since buco smoothies was
the dessert of the entire gourmet meal, other dishes such as chicken scallopini,
green salad and clear soup would more than compensate the recommended
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beaton, G.H., Martorell, R., Aronson, K., Edmonston, B., McCabe, G., Ross, A.
Block, G. (1991). Dietary guidelines and the results of food consumption surveys.
http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=12&pageid=59555B5A1D
737166767A78671D056D677A1D066C77667D646118056D74617B6461
1A4A5A58
De Caluwé, E., Halamová, K., and Van Damme, P. (2010). Tamarindus indica L.
http://www.dti.gov.ph/uploads/DownloadableFiles/alugbati_prod.pdf
75
dos Santos, D. P.R., de Lima Moreira, D., Franklin Guimarães, E. and Coelho
32, 1-11.
Frank, R.A., Ducheney, K. & Mize, S.J.S. (1989). Strawberry odor, but not red
371-377.
position paper from the American council on science and health. Journal
Lugod, G.C. and de Padua, L. (1989). Wild food plants of the Philippines. Vol. 1,
Meilgaard, M., Civille, C.V. & Carr, B.T. (2007). Sensory Evaluation Techniques,
Moskowitz, H.R., Beckley, J.H. & Resurreccion, A.V.A. (2006). Sensory and
Publishing, Ames, I A.
and acceptability of recipes prepared from spinach and betel leaves. The
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pierce, J. & Halpern, B.P. (1996). Orthonasal and retronasal identification based
upon vapor phase input from common substances. Chem. Sens. 21, 529-
543.
Pieroni, A., Janiak, V., Durr, C.M., Ludeke, S., Trachsel, E., Heinrich, M., 2002.
Pomeranz, Y. & Meloan, CE. (1994). Food analysis: Theory and practice.
Ross, A.C. (1992). Vitamin A status: relationship to immunity and the antibody
Stone, H. & Sidel, J.L. (2004). Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press,
New York.
Tapsell, L.C., Hemphill, I., Cobiac, L., Patch, C.S., Sullivan, D.R., Fenech, M.,
Roodenrys, S., Keogh, J.B., Clifton, P.M., Williams, P.G., Fazio, V.A. &
Inge, K.E. (2006). Health benefits of herbs and spices: the past, the
Taylor, A.J. & Linforth, R.S.T. (1996). Flavor research in the mouth. Trends Food
Appendix A
Instruction: Please check the appropriate column for your evaluation of each of the food samples presented using a
7-point hedonic scale. Each food sample will be evaluated in terms of general appearance, color, aroma, texture, taste
and overall acceptability.
Please write the number for your evaluation using the scale below:
7 = Highly Acceptable
6 = Moderately Acceptable
5 = Slightly Acceptable
4 = Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable
3 = Slightly Unacceptable
2 = Moderately Unacceptable
1 = Highly Unacceptable
81
General Appearance
Soup:
Low consistency
Vegetables are cut uniformly to ensure
an attractive soup
Size is large enough to be identifiable
but small enough to eat with spoon
Ingredients do not appear overcooked
There is no visible fat or scum
Vegetables do not turn brown and
cooked by sweating
Salad:
Ingredients are distinct or identifiable and
neatly cut and uniform in shape & size
Ingredients are arranged neatly in
appropriate container
Simple and natural arrangement but
appetizing
Main Course:
Ingredients are tender and appropriate in
size & shape
Chicken is cut in reasonable size
Dessert:
Serve in an attractive glass
82
Color
Soup:
Stock/liquid/broth is clear and color is
consistent with the main ingredients
Salad:
With varied colors but not over mixed
and no yellowing of leaves and
vegetables
Main Course:
Chicken and sauce is golden brown
Dessert:
Attractive and dominantly green
Aroma
Soup:
No distinct odor
Salad:
Smells sweet but not bitter
Main Course:
With fragrant aroma
Dessert:
Sweet and refreshing aroma
83
Texture
Soup:
Chicken meat are not overcooked
Salad:
With crunchy and soft ingredients
Main Course:
With thick sauce/consistency and chicken
meat is not dry but glace
Dessert:
Thick and smooth
Taste
Soup:
Mild saltiness, seasoning are balance with
no additive (predominant salt is not an
obvious taste)
True flavor with no taste of burned
ingredients or off flavor
Ingredients complement each other
Salad:
With a little taste of salt and pepper
Main Course:
With thick sauce and flavorful
Moderately seasoned with salt and pepper
With no taste of burned ingredients
Chicken is properly seasoned
Dessert:
Creamy and no aftertaste
84
Appendix B
Appendix Table 1. Nutrient composition per 100 grams of each ingredient used in the production of “chicken scallopini”
Chicken breast 73.1 131 21.6 5.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 24 162 1.0 30 5 31 0.06 0.06 97 0
Alugbati 92.5 23 2.0 0.3 3.0 0.9 2.2 128 40 4.9 0 2735 456 0.04 0.12 0.5 89
Pako 89.9 44 3.8 1.7 3.3 1.3 1.3 36 76 3.0 0 3100 517 0.00 0.10 1.9 10
Pansit-pansitan 97.2 11 0.5 .05 1.1 0.7 0.7 94 13 4.3 0 1250 208 0.01 0.00 0.1 2
Garlic (bulb) 66.5 129 7.0 0.3 24.6 (2.5) 1.6 28 121 1.2 0 0 0 0.23 0.08 0.4 7
Butter 16.0 772 0.5 85.5 0.0 0.1 1.5 18 18 0.6 355 335 411 0.01 0.01 Tr 0
All-purpose flour 12.3 352 12.6 0.8 73.7 (3.3) 0.6 82 105 4.4 0 0 0 0.02 0.11 5.2 0
Salt 10.3 128 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 57.8 267 27 5.5 0 0 0 Tr Tr Tr 0
Ground black pepper 255 10.95 3.26 64.81 26.5 - 437 173 28.86 0 156 299 0.109 0.24 1.142 21
Mushrooms -canned 93.6 23 2.3 0.4 2.5 (1.8) 1.2 40 54 0.4 0 0 0 0.02 0.10 1.8 2
Capers 23 2.36 0.86 4.89 3.2 40 10 1.67 0 83 138 0.018 0.139 0.652 0
Lemon juice 91.4 42 0.5 1.6 6.3 (0.1) 0.2 8 7 0.2 0 Tr Tr 0.04 0.02 0.2 45
White wine 92.6 30 0.07 0.0 0.3 0 0.2 2 4 0.2 0 0 0 0.00 0.02 0.1 0
Chicken-flavored
demi-glace 4.1 306 15.3 22.3 11.0 0 47.3 58 143 18 25 10 27 0.84 0.14 2.7 0
Fresh parsley 84.2 58 4.0 0.9 8.4 (6.5) 2.5 264 46 1.8 0 1550 258 0.17 0.18 0.9 117
Lemon 91.4 42 0.5 1.6 6.3 (0.1) 0.2 8 7 0.2 0 Tr Tr 0.04 0.02 0.2 45
86
Appendix Table 2. Nutrient composition per 100 grams of each ingredient used in the production of “clear soup”
NUTRIENT COMPOSITION
CLEAR SOUP Water Energy Protein Fat Carbo- Crude Ash Calcium Phos- Iron Retinol β– Vit. Thiamin Ribo- Niacin Ascor-
INGREDIENTS (g) (kcal) (g) (g) hydrate Fiber (g) (mg) phorus (mg) (µg) carotene A (mg) flavin (mg) bic
(g) (g) (mg) (µg) (RE) (mg) Acid
(µg) (mg)
Cauliflower 91.7 32 2.1 0.3 5.2 (2.1) 0.7 41 42 0.8 0 45 8 0.05 0.12 0.7 82
Alugbati 92.5 23 2.0 0.3 3.0 0.9 2.2 128 40 4.9 0 2735 456 0.04 0.12 0.5 89
Pako 89.9 44 3.8 1.7 3.3 1.3 1.3 36 76 3.0 0 3100 517 0.00 0.10 1.9 10
Pansit-pansitan 97.2 11 0.5 .05 1.1 0.7 0.7 94 13 4.3 0 1250 208 0.01 0.00 0.1 2
Butter 16.0 772 0.5 85.5 0.0 0.1 1.5 18 18 0.6 355 335 411 0.01 0.01 Tr 0
Onion 87.0 52 1.7 0.3 10.5 (2.0) 0.5 40 51 0.6 0 Tr Tr 0.04 0.01 0.4 5
Salt 10.3 128 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 57.8 267 27 5.5 0 0 0 Tr Tr Tr 0
Garlic (bulb) 66.5 129 7.0 0.3 24.6 (2.5) 1.6 28 121 1.2 0 0 0 0.23 0.08 0.4 7
Chicken broth 86.2 61 1.7 1.8 9.5 - 0.8 8 14 0.7 25 - - 0.02 0.02 0.4 0
White pepper 11.42 296 10.4 2.12 68.61 1.59 0.265 176 14.31 0 - Tr 0.02 0.126 0.212 -
Nutmeg 14.3 525 5.84 36.31 49.29 20.8 - 184 213 3.04 0 16 0 0.346 - 1.3 0
Fresh parsley 84.2 58 4.0 0.9 8.4 (6.5) 2.5 264 46 1.8 0 1550 258 0.17 0.18 0.9 117
87
Appendix Table 3. Nutrient composition per 100 grams of each ingredient used in the production of “green salad”
NUTRIENT COMPOSITION
GREEN SALAD Water Energy Protein Fat Carbo- Crude Ash Calcium Phos- Iron Retinol β– Vit. Thiamin Ribo- Niacin Ascor-
INGREDIENTS (g) (kcal) (g) (g) hydrate Fiber (g) (mg) phorus (mg) (µg) carotene A (mg) flavin (mg) bic
(g) (g) (mg) (µg) (RE) (mg) Acid
(µg) (mg)
Lettuce 94.1 22 1.3 0.4 3.4 0.6 0.8 97 34 3.4 0 1800 300 0.06 0.11 0.5 19
Alugbati 92.5 23 2.0 0.3 3.0 0.9 2.2 128 40 4.9 0 2735 456 0.04 0.12 0.5 89
Pako 89.9 44 3.8 1.7 3.3 1.3 1.3 36 76 3.0 0 3100 517 0.00 0.10 1.9 10
Pansit-pansitan 97.2 11 0.5 .05 1.1 0.7 0.7 94 13 4.3 0 1250 208 0.01 0.00 0.1 2
Cucumber 95.9 16 0.6 0.2 2.9 (0.5) 0.4 22 17 0.4 0 Tr Tr 0.02 0.02 0.1 10
Carrot 86.7 52 1.5 0.4 10.5 (3.4) 0.9 69 38 2.1 0 10005 1668 0.04 0.04 0.8 8
Tomato 93.0 27 0.9 0.3 5.2 (1.5) 0.6 31 26 1.0 0 380 63 0.05 0.03 0.6 34
Tuna flakes, canned 54.3 309 15.4 26.7 1.7 0.1 1.9 16 105 0.7 0 0 0 0.01 0.10 9.4 0
Egg, whole boiled 72.1 170 13.9 12.4 0.7 0.0 0.9 73 180 3.5 85 25 89 0.09 0.46 0.1 0
Salt 10.3 128 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 57.8 267 27 5.5 0 0 0 Tr Tr Tr 0
White pepper 11.42 296 10.4 2.12 68.61 - 1.59 0.265 176 14.31 0 - Tr 0.02 0.126 0.212 -
Vinaigrette 66.25 143.75 0.5 0.40 28.13 0.0 - 18.75 37.5 0.63 0 18.75 0 0.006 0.013 0 6.25
Croutons, seasoned 3.6 465 10.8 6.7 63.5 5 - 95 140 2.83 32.5 5 7.5 0.505 0.42 4.65 0
88
Appendix Table 4. Nutrient composition per 100 grams of each ingredient used in the production of “buco smoothies”
NUTRIENT COMPOSITION
BUCO SMOOTHIES Water Energy Protein Fat Carbo- Crude Ash Calcium Phos- Iron Retinol β– Vit. Thiamin Ribo- Niacin Ascor-
INGREDIENTS (g) (kcal) (g) (g) hydrate Fiber (g) (mg) phorus (mg) (µg) carotene A (mg) flavin (mg) bic
(g) (g) (mg) (µg) (RE) (mg) Acid
(µg) (mg)
Buco meat 80.6 102 1.4 5.3 12.1 (6.6) 0.6 10 54 0.7 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.6 8
Alugbati 92.5 23 2.0 0.3 3.0 0.9 2.2 128 40 4.9 0 2735 456 0.04 0.12 0.5 89
Pako 89.9 44 3.8 1.7 3.3 1.3 1.3 36 76 3.0 0 3100 517 0.00 0.10 1.9 10
Pansit-pansitan 97.2 11 0.5 .05 1.1 0.7 0.7 94 13 4.3 0 1250 208 0.01 0.00 0.1 2
Coco sap 7.6 369.4 1.3 1.8 89.2 - 2.2 6.0 79 1.6 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.2 0
Evaporated milk 71.3 148 7.7 0.12 11.7 0.0 1.5 313 202 2.0 110 35 116 0.41 0.39 0.2 23.4