275039117-thesis-culinary-arts.docx

0

DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTABILITY OF A HEALTHY GOURMET MEAL USING WILD GREENS

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 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction Gourmet is a cultural ideal associated with the culinary arts of fine food and drink, or haute cuisine, which is characterized by refined, even elaborate preparations and presentations of aesthetically balanced meals of several contrasting, often quite rich courses. The term and its associated practices are usually used positively to describe people of refined taste and passion (McGrath, 2007). Gourmet may describe a class of restaurant, cuisine, meal or ingredient of high quality, of special presentation, or high sophistication (Kamp, 2006). Gourmet cooking is essentially an art. One considers balances between 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 decorative

garnishes

that

basic

cooking

doesn't

bother

with,

and

variety/uniqueness is the key. Cooking time is much more critical as it affects color, texture, and taste. The ingredients are meant to impress so often they are more rare and/or expensive (Irving, 2009). The world food scene today is focused on local sustainable ingredients. 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 can supplement nutritional requirements, especially vitamins and micronutrients (Ali-Shtayeh et al., 2008).

2

Wild greens are traditionally important items of diet in many Filipino homes. Apart from the variety which they add to the menu, they are valuable sources of nutrients especially in rural areas where they contribute substantially 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 appeal to what would otherwise be a monotonous diet. They are in abundance in the Philippines (Lugod and de Padua, 1989). Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) continues to constitute a major health problem 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 lowincome populations such as the Philippines (Haskell et al., 2004). According to Faber et al. (2001), the essential role of vitamin A in vision and eye health has been recognized as a critical factor in health and survival of individuals. The Recommended Energy and Nutrient Intake (RENI) of vitamin A 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 (FNRI-DOST, 2002). For pregnant women, the recommended vitamin A intake is 800 micrograms, while for lactating women the recommended vitamin A intake is 900 micrograms. Although an abundance of plant sources rich in 𝛽-carotene is available to 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 activity of the pro-vitamin (𝛽-carotene-rich) foods (Louw, 2001). As such, this study emphasized the significance of edible wild greens in supplementing vitamin A deficiency among target consumers of gourmet meal. This research was conducted to develop a healthy gourmet meal comprising of 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 pansitpansitan on the sensory characteristics, theoretical nutrient content and overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal.

Background of the Study Consumers now demand higher quality in all aspects of life. Gourmet dishes are developed to produce food with superior sensory qualities and sophistication compared to other cuisines (Novelli, 2004). 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, be it from a river banks, or along a busy roadside. 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 recognize and find (Lugod and de Padua, 1989). According to modern nutritional studies, the consumption of wild greens 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 terms of their nutritional content, taste and aroma. 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 in sustainability and acceptability for providing nutritional security. 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 vegetables, herbs, and spices in the development of dishes. Raising people’s awareness about the edibility and palatability of wild 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 food on the table could be addressed. Food producers could be encouraged to include cultivation of wild greens in extensive scale. Furthermore, households 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 pansit-pansitan in the development of a gourmet meal.

Statement of the Problem This study will be conducted to develop gourmet dishes using local wild greens. Specifically, this answered the following research problems: 1.

What are the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal using different formulations of wild green in terms of the following: a. general appearance, b. color,

6

c. aroma, d. texture, and e. taste? 2. Is there a significant difference in the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal prepared using three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan? 3. Is there a significant difference in the ratings of the two groups of panelist such as: a) trained panelists (culinary instructors), and b) experts (chefs) with regard to sensory characteristics and overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan? 4. Are the nutritional contents of the most acceptable gourmet meal meet the recommended vitamin A based on Recommended Energy and Nutrient Intake (RENI) for Filipino adults? 5. What is the direct material cost in the production of gourmet meal?

Hypotheses To answer the objectives of this study, the hypotheses that were tested are: H1. There is no significant difference in the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan.

7

H2. There is no significant difference in the overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan. H3. There is no significant difference in the ratings of the two groups of panelist such as: a) trained panelists (culinary instructors), and b) experts (chefs) with regard to sensory characteristics and overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan.

Scope and Limitations of the Study The study focused on the development of a complete gourmet meal 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. Two groups of panelists were invited to participate in this experimental study, namely: 15 culinary instructors from Cavite State University, Indang, 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 sensory properties and overall acceptability of the developed gourmet dishes using wild greens.

8

Significance of the Study The abundance of nutritious local wild greens in the Philippines prompted the researcher to find alternative ways of developing gourmet meal using local and abundant ingredients such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan. It is hoped that this study would benefit the following: Hotel and restaurant management faculty and students. The results of this study would expand the knowledge of faculty members and HRM students in the development of recipes utilizing local wild greens. 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. Consumers. It is hoped that this study would be appreciated by consumers particularly health food lovers on benefits to the immune system these wild greens provide. Local community. The use of local wild greens in the production of gourmet dishes would hopefully help sustain the local economy and upholds the way of life of local farmers. Future researchers. Finally, this study may also serve as valuable reference to students and other researchers conducting related study.

9

Definition of Terms For the purposes of clarity to establish a common frame of reference for the study, the following terms are defined operationally as they were used in this study: Aroma refers to total (positive) olfactory impression gained from breathing through the nose and from expiratory olfaction of the food. Blind test refer to food samples which are presented without any distinguishing features relating to treatment used. 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 the form of a 3-digit random number or a letter. Gourmet meal refers to an elegant meal meticulously prepared with great taste intended for the family. Food expert refers to formally qualified assessor who possesses specialist technical knowledge and experience and who is responsible for testing particular products/product groups. In this study, this referred to qualified gourmet chefs who will evaluate the sensory and overall acceptability of gourmet dishes produced with wild greens. Hedonic test refers to an affective test to evaluate the popularity of an aroma, appearance, taste/flavor, texture or off-flavor impression.

10

Overall acceptability refers to overall sensory assessment based on a combination of all characteristic attributes contributing to sensory quality which influence the acceptability or rejection of food products. Panel refers to group of assessors selected to take part in a sensory test. Sensory evaluation is a scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret reactions to those characteristics of foods and materials as 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 the sensory pathways (olfactory, visual, gustatory, auditory, and tactile). 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 of taking food into the mouth Taste/flavor refers to the sum of olfactory, gustatory, thermal and haptic 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 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

A view of the work done by several scholars helps in planning future 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 dishes are reviewed to substantiate the kind of study undertaken. Keeping in view the objectives set forth in this study, the relevant references available are critically reviewed in this chapter.

Alugbati Alugbati (Basella rubra Linn., B. alba Linn.)

also known as ‘arogbati’;

‘dundula’; ‘grana’; ‘ilaibakir’; ‘libato’; Ceylon spinach, Malabar spinach, Indian spinach, Climbing spinach (Eng.); and ‘Lok’uei’ or ‘luo kui shu’ (Chinese) is one of the most popular indigenous leafy vegetables in the Philippines. Originally from India, it is usually found in settled areas, in hedges, old cultivated areas throughout the Philippines. It is extensively grown in market gardens and home gardens and is being sold even in supermarkets in Visayas and Mindanao. It is 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 Agricultural Statistics, 2006).

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 Office: the red-stemmed ‘Pulahan’ and the green-stemmed ‘Luntian’.

Uses and Nutritional Value Alugbati has a pleasant, mild spinach flavor that some may find earthy. It is slimy when overcooked, which makes it an excellent thickening agent in soups 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 poison. A paste of the root is used as a rubefacient or applied to swellings. A paste of the leaves is applied externally to treat boils.

13

Per 100 grams edible portion, alugbati leaves contain the following:

Properties Water (g) Energy (kcal) Protein (g) Fat (g) Carbohydrates (g) Crude Fiber (g) Ash (g) Calcium (mg) Phosphorous (mg) Iron (mg) Beta-carotene (µg) Vitamin A (RE-µg) Thiamine (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) Ascorbic acid (mg)

Amount 92.5 23.0 2.0 0.3 3.0 0.9 2.2 128.0 40.0 4.9 2735.0 456.0 0.04 0.12 0.50 89.0

Source: The Philippine Food Composition Tables (1997). Food and Nutrition Research Institute- Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST)

Pansit-pansitan The pansit-pansitan (Peperomia Pellucida) is an herb also known as ‘ulasiman-bato’, ‘olasiman-ihalas’ and ‘tangon-tangon’ in the Philippines. It belongs to the family Piperaceae, comprising of about 5 genera and 1,400 species. The genus Peperomia represents nearly half of the Piperaceae. Peperomia pellucida herb can be commonly found in many South American 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

Uses and Nutritional Value Peperomia pellucida has been used for treating multitude of disease like abdominal pain, gout, headache, renal disorders, acne, and abscess. It has been used in salads or as cooked vegetable to help in the treatment of rheumatic joint pain (Khan and Omoloso, 2002). There are numerous chemical investigations, primarily focusing on the essential oils of the plant, one study identified 71 compounds from the essential oils of piperaceae species with Sesquiterpenes was found to be the major constituent. Cartotol was the major hydroxylated sesquiterpene in the chemical analysis of P. pellucida. Flavonoids, phytosterols, arylpropanoids, substituted styrenes, and a dimeric ArC2 compound or pellucidin A has been isolated. These compounds have a documented anti-inflammatory, chemotherapeutic, and analgesic properties found in P. pellucida in crude form (dos Santos et al., 2001). Peperomia pellucida is one of the 10 recommended herbal medicines 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 medicinal plant website, (DoH). The leaves and stalk of pansit-pansitan are edible. It can be harvested, washed and eaten as fresh salad. Taken as a salad, pansit-pansitan helps relive rheumatic pains and gout. An infusion or decoction (boil 1 cup of leaves/stem in 2 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 Santos et al., 2001). Per 100 grams of edible portion of pansit-pansitan or ulasimang bato, it contains the following:

Properties Water (g) Energy (kcal) Protein (g) Fat (g) Carbohydrates (g) Crude fiber (g) Ash (g) Calcium (mg) Phosphorous (mg) Iron (mg) Beta-carotene (µg) Vitamin A (RE-µg) Thiamin (mg) Niacin (mg) Ascorbic acid (mg)

Amount 97.2 11.00 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.7 94.0 13.0 4.3 1250.0 208.0 0.01 0.1 2.0

Source: The Philippine Food Composition Tables (1997). Food and Nutrition Research Institute- Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST)

Pako Pako is part of the Athyrium genus and its scientific name is Athyrium esculentum. It is known as linguda in northern India, referring to the curled fronds. It is an edible fern found throughout Asia and Oceania. It is probably the most commonly consumed fern (Kagyung et al., 2010) 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 3- pinnate, 50 to 80 cm long, about half as wide as long. The pinnules are lanceolate, 2 to 3 cm long and rather coarsely toothed. The sori are superficial, arranged in pairs on the side of the veins, or veinlets (DENR, 2003). Pako is a characteristic plant on gravel bars and banks of swift streams. It is widely distributed in the Philippines. It is propagated vegetatively and by spores (DENR, 2003).

Variety Pako and its variations is a local name shared by many medicinal plants: (1) Pako - Athyrium esculentum; (2) Pakong-alagdan - Blechnum orientale; (3) Pakong-anuanag, pako, buhok-virgin, dila-dila - Onychium siliculosum; (4) Pakong-gubat, pakong kalabao, Pityrogramma calomelanos; (5) Pakong-parang - Pteris ensiformis; (6) Pakong-roman - Ceratopteris thalictroides; (7) Pakong-tulog, pakong-cipres, Selaginella tamariscina; (8) Pakong buwaya Cyathea contaminans (DENR, 2003).

Uses and Nutritional Value 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 vitamin B (DENR, 2003).

17

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 Water (g) Energy (kcal) Protein (g) Fat (g) Carbohydrates (g) Crude Fiber (g) Ash (g) Calcium (mg) Phosphorous (mg) Iron (mg) Beta-carotene (µg) Vitamin A (RE-µg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) Ascorbic acid (mg)

Amount 89.9 44.0 3.8 1.7 3.3 1.3 1.3 36.0 76.0 3.0 3100.0 517.0 0.1 1.9 10.0

Source: The Philippine Food Composition Tables (1997). Food and Nutrition Research Institute- Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST)

Vitamin A as an Essential Nutrient for Human Health Promoting dietary change to improve vitamin A intake has been recommended as a feasible long-term strategy in combating vitamin A deficiency (VAD) among humans (WHO, 1994).

18

Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin and an essential micronutrient for humans, because the body cannot produce it (Tompson et al., 2005). According to Hands (2000), vitamin A comprises a large family of fat-soluble compounds, 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. These are collectively known as retinoids (Tompson et al., 2005; Ensminger et al., 1999). Vitamin A is essential for the health and well-being of an individual and 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 in vitamin A, pro-vitamin A, vitamin A supplements and foods fortified with vitamin A (WHO, 1994; Faber et al., 2001). Vitamin A is needed by the human body for many physiologically important functions, the most obvious deficiency symptom being blindness, preceded by night blindness (XN) and Bitot's spots (X1B). These and other ocular manifestations are termed xerophthalmia or "dry eye". Xerophthalmia 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 results of a meta-analysis of studies performed on vitamin A supplementation 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 Gourmet food is a style of cooking that is found in any type of food, whether it is Italian, French, Modern American, Asian, or any other cuisine. Gourmet food, by definition, is a high-quality food that is more sophisticated and takes greater preparation. But it is also a state of mind. There is no one 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 simple food into a gourmet food (Kendrick, 2012). 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 preparation. Often, a cook will have to carefully monitor a dish as it cooks in order to get it just right. Many gourmet foods are designed to be served under the

20

right conditions so over-cooking or under-cooking can ruin a gourmet dish (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 expensive. Sometimes, the ingredients might also be hard to find (Kendrick, 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 Sensory analysis uses human senses to consistently measure such food characteristics as taste, texture, smell, and appearance in a controlled

21

environment. The information collected assists the food industry in addressing consumer demands and introducing new and improved products (Stone and Sidel, 2004). According to Stone and Sidel (2004) sensory evaluation can be divided into two categories of testing: objective and subjective. In objective testing, the sensory attributes of a product are evaluated by a selected or trained panel. In subjective testing, the reactions of consumers to the sensory properties of 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 properties drive consumer acceptance and emotional benefits. Linking sensory properties to physical, chemical, formulation and/or process variables then enables the product to be designed to deliver optimum or appropriate consumer benefits. Descriptive sensory evaluation identifies, describes and quantifies the sensory attributes of a food material or product using human subjects (Einstein, 1991). These human subjects are trained to describe the complete profile of food products in all sensory parameters such as appearance, taste, aroma, smell or odor and texture/mouthfeel characteristics. A descriptive sensory panel comprising of people trained to consistently and reliably identify and quantify individual sensory characteristics of a particular food material (Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr, 2007).

22

Consumer sensory evaluation is a process for evaluation personal opinions of current or potential customers of a particular product in terms of specific sensory attributes or overall liking (Resurreccion, 1998). Meilgaard and colleagues (2007) emphasized that sensory testing can determine the impact of scaling up kitchen and/or pilot samples to large-scale production and is invaluable in determining whether raw ingredient changes or modifications to the production process, e.g. for cost reduction or change of supplier, will impact on sensory quality and/or product acceptability. In terms of quality assurance, it can be used as part of a QA programme on raw materials. In addition, sensory testing can set consumer acceptability limits for sensory specifications used during quality testing (MacFie, 2007). For those products susceptible to taints, sensory testing can ensure 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 variability through the supply chain. From a marketing perspective, sensory and consumer testing can inform understanding concerning product preferences and acceptability. It can provide 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 brand communication and advertising. Moskowitz et al. (2006) purport that sensory and consumer testing is widely employed in the research arena. It is used at a more fundamental level to

23

investigate new technologies to aid product development and to understand consumer behavior. Furthermore, multidisciplinary investigations linking sensory testing with, for example instrumental analyses, brain-imaging techniques, psychophysical tests and genomics provide a wider understanding of the mechanisms involved in sensory perception and the variations that exist within the population (MacFie, 2007). Successful sensory testing is driven by setting clear objectives, developing robust experimental strategy and design, applying appropriate statistical techniques, adhering to good ethical practice and successfully delivering actionable insights that are used to inform decision-making. Appropriate training is crucial to ensure that the sensory professional has the necessary technical capability and interpersonal skills (Moskowitz et al., 2006).

General Appearance Appearance is the visual quality of a food. It is one of the five dimensions used to evaluate food. Overall appearance includes all visible sensory attributes such as color, size and shape as well as surface texture (Cardello, 1994). Appearance is commonly used by consumers to infer food product quality; frequently this is the only cue available, especially at the moment of purchase (Schröder, 2003). Flavor involves sensory attributes like taste, specific flavor, aroma and sweetness. It can be defined as “the complex combination of the

24

olfactory, gustatory, and trigeminal sensations perceived during tasting” (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 person inhales them (voluntarily or otherwise) (Meilgaard et al., 1999). It is believed that aroma is more important than taste in determining the overall appreciation of food (Taylor and Linforth, 1996). Volatile compounds that are perceived by the odors receptors either directly through the nose (nasal reception) or indirectly through the pharynx during eating or drinking (retro-nasal perception) are called "aroma compounds" (Pierce and Halpern, 1996). Furthermore, it has to be emphasized that changes in stimuli occur when a food is ingested or masticated. This affects the rate of release and concentration of both tastants and odorants (Halpern, 1977).

Texture Texture is another important parameter which affects shelf life of food and consumer acceptance (Pomeranz and Meloan, 1994). When a food generates a 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 geometrical, mechanical and moisture properties by the tactile nerves in the surface of the skin of the hand, lips, or tongue (Piggott, 1988). Overall liking can be defined as a complex expression of liking of the product as a whole.

Taste Taste in this study is experienced exclusively by the tongue, and not in 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 perception of aroma compounds. The appreciation of food is very much depending on the synergy between taste and aroma (Pomeranz and Meloan, 1994).

Studies on the Use of Wild Greens in Dishes A study was conducted by Kulkarni (2003) to explore the utility of underutilized leafy vegetables to enrich routine diets for nutrition security. Five underutilized leafy vegetables were selected on the basis of the micronutrient profile (drumstick, chakramuni, bengal gram leaves, chandanabatta leaves and sambar soppu) and 14 value added traditional foods were developed by incorporating these at different levels (10 or 25 or 50%). The products were 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 millet upma with drumstick leaves. Kaur and Kochar (2005) carried out a study on organoleptic evaluation of preparations using underexploited greens (greens of cauliflower, radish, turnip 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. Acceptable pulav could be developed by incorporating carrot and turnip greens at 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 with scores of 5.42 and 6.30, respectively. Nande et al. (2007) studied acceptability of recipes prepared from different varieties of betel leaves. Three recipes namely coconut burfi, cutlet and muthia were developed and the recipes prepared from spinach served as control. Sixty grams of leaves was incorporated in coconut burfi and cutlet whereas, 70 g leaves was incorporated in muthia preparation. Coconut burfi prepared from 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 characteristics followed by cutlets prepared from sweet betel leaves (3.67 to 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< 0.01 for spinach versus bangla betel leaves).

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 wild greens as an ingredient in dishes. This study reviewed the literatures presented in this chapter to lend empirical support to the findings of this study.

Conceptual Framework The Input-Process-Output model was adopted in this study. Figure 1 illustrates the research paradigm of the study.

28

INPUTS

Different Formulations of Wild Greens using  Alugbati  Pako  Pansit-pansitan

Standard recipes for Gourmet Meal  Ingredients  Processes  Cooking technologies

PROCESS 





Sensory evaluation for the most acceptable wild greens in the development of gourmet meal

Theoretical nutrient content analysis of the developed gourmet meal based on RENI Test for significant differences in sensory ratings and overall acceptability

FEEDBACK

Figure 1. The Research Paradigm

OUTPUT

Acceptable and Healthy Gourmet Meal prepared with Wild Greens 

Chicken scallopini



Clear soup



Green salad



Buco smoothies

29

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research design, the data collection, and the statistical and mathematical tools that were used.

Research Design This study employed within-subjects experimental research design. According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007), experimental research design is a systematic and scientific approach to research in which the researcher manipulates one or more variables, and controls and measures any change in other variables. In a within subjects design, every single participant is subjected to every single treatment. It looks for differences between treatment conditions within the same group of participants. A within subjects design is often called a repeated-measures design because the research study repeats measurements of the same individuals under different conditions (Montgomery, 1997). In this study, participants were tested under all experimental lots to study the effect of three different local wild greens on the sensory characteristics, nutrient content and overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal. The advantage of within subjects design is that it requires relatively few participants and it essentially eliminated all of the problems based on individual differences that are the primary concern of a between-subjects designs - a within-subjects design has no differences between groups and each individual serves as his or her own control or baseline (Montgomery, 1997).

30

This experimental research was undertaken to develop a gourmet meal using three local wild greens.

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 health conditions, time availability and absence of allergies to wild plants. Initial orientation session was conducted by the researcher where panelists received detailed explanation about the descriptive organoleptic methodology and general description of the gourmet meal products.

A. Trained Laboratory Panel Fifteen HRM faculty members from Cavite State University, Main Campus will be invited to participate in sensory evaluation of food samples. These faculty members have a National Certificate II (NC II) in commercial cooking which is issued by TESDA when a candidate has demonstrated competence in all units of competency that comprised the qualification for commercial cooking. They were chosen since they have knowledge and experience in food production and preparation. They were classified as trained laboratory panel with particular sensory abilities, which are trained in order to participate in a test group.

B. Expert Sensory Panel A convenience sample of 15 chefs in Cavite will be selected as the expert 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 in a gourmet meal sample in terms of preparation, presentation, general appearance, color, aroma, texture and taste.

Methods This study developed a gourmet meal that utilized three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan. The process involved three 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.

The experimental lots were as follows: Gourmet Dish

Lot 0 (control)

Experimental Lot Lot 1 Lot 2

Lot 3

Chicken scallopini

Without wild green

300 g pako

450 g alugbati

950 g pansitpansitan

Clear Soup

250 g cauliflower

250 g pako

250 g alugbati

550 g pansitpansitan

Green salad

250 g lettuce

350 g pako

380 g alugbati

800 g pansitpansitan

Buco smoothies

Without wild green

15 g pako

12.5 g alugbati

80 g pansitpansitan

32

Ingredients The following are the ingredients and procedure in the production of the three gourmet dishes using local wild greens:

A. Chicken Scallopini Source:

Retrieved

from

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/chicken-

scallopini/?scale=6&ismetric=0

Ingredients 6 skinless, boneless chicken breast halves Wild green (alugbati/pako/pansitpansitan) Cloves garlic, pressed Butter, softened All-purpose flour Salt and ground black pepper to taste Sliced mushrooms Capers, or to taste Lemon juice White wine Chicken-flavored demi-glace, or to taste Chopped fresh parsley, or to taste 6 lemon slices Total Formula (in g)

Lot 0 600

Experimental Lot (in grams) Lot 1 Lot 2 600 600

Lot 3 600

0

300

450

950

6 170 187 10 300 20 32 90 90

6 170 187 10 300 20 32 90 90

6 170 187 10 300 20 32 90 90

6 170 187 10 300 20 32 90 90

10 30

10 30

10 30

10 30

1545

1845

1995

2495

33

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 demiglace, 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.

Figure 2. Process Flow Chart in the Preparation of Chicken Scallopine

34

B. Clear Soup Source: http://localfoods.about.com/od/winter/r/CauliflowerSoup.htm

Ingredients Cauliflower, chopped Wild green, chopped Butter Onion, roughly chopped Salt Garlic, chopped Chicken or vegetable broth Freshly ground white pepper Freshly grated nutmeg Finely chopped parsley Total Formula (in g)

Lot 0 250 0 45 150 3 12 400 1 1 3 865

Experimental Lot (in grams) Lot 1 Lot 2 150 100 250 250 45 45 150 150 3 3 12 12 400 400 1 1 1 1 3 3 1015

965

Lot 3 50 550 45 150 3 12 400 1 1 3 1215

35

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.

Stir in pepper and nutmeg.

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.

Figure 3. Process Flow Chart in the Preparation of Clear Soup

36

C. Green Salad Source: http://www.simply-salads.com/cucumber-salad-recipes.html

Ingredients Lettuce, chopped Wild green, chopped Cucumber Carrot Tomatoes, quartered Canned tuna, drained and flaked Hard-boiled egg, sliced Salt and pepper Vinaigrette Croutons

Lot 0 250 0 300 150 250 320 65 12 5 50

Total Formula (in g)

1402

Experimental Lot (in grams) Lot 1 Lot 2 150 100 350 380 300 300 150 150 250 250 320 320 65 65 12 12 5 5 50 50 1652

1632

Lot 3 50 800 300 150 250 320 65 12 5 50 2002

Combine all the ingredients in a bowl and toss to evenly coat.

Serve immediately, or prepare it up to a few hours in advance and keep it in the refrigerator until needed.

Figure 4. Process Flow Chart in the Preparation of Green Salad

37

D. Buco Smoothies Source: http://dishismylife.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/bucosmoothies/

Ingredients Wild green, mashed Buco meat, shredded Coco sap Evaporated milk Crushed ice

Lot 0 0 186 15 120 250

Total Formula (in g)

571

Experimental Lot (in grams) Lot 1 Lot 2 15 12.5 186 186 15 15 120 120 250 250 586

583.5

Lot 3 80 186 15 120 250 651

Combine all the ingredients in a blender and stir to evenly mix.

In a blender, blend all the ingredients until smooth.

Figure 5. Process Flow Chart in the Preparation of Buco Smoothies

38

Sensory Evaluation Sensory evaluation was used to assess the acceptability of the gourmet meal utilizing three local wild greens such as alugbati, pansit-pansitan and pako to determine the level of its acceptance or rejection by panel members. Two separate sensory testing for trained panel and expert panel were conducted between January and February 2013. Prior to sensory evaluation of food samples, panel members were informed on what to do. The researcher explained the experimental procedure and instructions on how to answer the score card. The prepared recipes will be subjected to sensory evaluation. Sensory evaluation will be done by a trained panel consisting of 15 culinary instructors and experts consisting of 15 chefs using seven-point hedonic scale. Clean and sterile utensils will be provided for serving food samples. Samples will be coded with numbers and will be served individually. Food samples will be presented individually by experimental lots. Each of the participants will evaluate the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal using three local wild greens. The panel will be given sufficient amount of samples at room temperature 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 provided for each gourmet dish in a test session. Basic sensory method for food evaluation will be used. Hedonic test will be used to measure the sensory characteristics and overall acceptability of each of the food samples. A 7-point hedonic scale will be used in the sensory evaluation and overall acceptability evaluation of coded food samples. The categories will be converted to numerical scores ranging from 1 to 7. The hedonic scale that will be used is represented as: 7 – Very Good 6 – Moderately Good 5 – Good 4 – Fair 3 – Very Fair 2 – Poor 1 – Very Poor

Theoretical Nutrient Content Analysis All dishes will be subjected for nutritional assessment. Appendix B shows 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 Permission to conduct this study will be secured from the Research Adviser. Likewise, permission to conduct sensory tests to professionals and expert evaluators will be secured from the Dean of Graduate School of Hospitality Management of Philippine Women’s University, Manila. Once approval is granted, informed consent will obtained from target panel members. Panel members grouped into trained laboratory panelists and expert panelists will participate in this experiment. Sensory evaluation will conducted from January to February 2013.

Statistical Treatment Frequency counts, weighted mean and percentages will be used for descriptive variables. The analysis of data will be done using t-test and F – statistics. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine if there is a significant difference among the food samples in terms of all the parameters that will be measured such as: general appearance, color, texture, taste, nutrient content and overall acceptability. T-test will be used to determine if there is a significant difference between the ratings of two groups of panelist with regard to sensory characteristics and overall acceptability of the food samples prepared using three local wild greens. Significance will be accepted at 5% level.

41

Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal using different formulations of wild green; the comparison in the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal prepared using three 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 instructors), and b) experts (chefs) with regard to sensory characteristics and overall acceptability of the developed gourmet meal prepared with three local wild greens such as alugbati, pako and pansit-pansitan; the nutritional contents of the most acceptable gourmet meal based on Recommended Energy and Nutrient Intake (RENI) for Filipino adults; and the direct material cost in the production of gourmet meal.

Sensory Characteristics of the Developed Gourmet Meal using Different Formulations of Wild Green The sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal using different formulations of wild green was evaluated by trained laboratory panel and expert panelists in terms of general appearance, color, aroma, texture, and taste.

42

A. Clear Soup The sensory characteristics of clear soup across treatment are summarized in Tables 1 to 5.

Table 1. General appearance of clear soup across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower Lot 1 = 250 g pako Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.8000 4.8333 5.1333 5.1667

Std. Deviation .76112 .94989 1.33218 1.39168

General Appearance Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 appearance of clear soup in the control (Lot 0) was “moderately acceptable” to 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 acceptable” to panelists with weighted mean of 5.13 and 4.83, respectively.

43

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 general appearance than clear soup with wild greens.

Table 2. Color of clear soup across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower Lot 1 = 250 g pako Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.8000 4.8333 5.1333 5.1667

.76112 .94989 1.33218 1.39168

Color Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 cauliflower was “moderately acceptable. The remaining experimental lots (Lot 1, 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 acceptable color as compared to clear soup with wild greens.

Table 3. Aroma of clear soup across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower Lot 1 = 250 g pako Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.8000 4.8333 5.1333 5.1667

.76112 .94989 1.33218 1.39168

Aroma Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 acceptable aroma as compared to clear soup with wild greens.

45

Table 4. Texture of clear soup across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower Lot 1 = 250 g pako Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.8000 5.0333 4.9333 5.3000

.92476 1.09807 1.14269 1.26355

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 that utilized wild greens.

46

Table 5. Taste of clear soup across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g cauliflower Lot 1 = 250 g pako Lot 2 = 250 g alugbati Lot 3 = 550 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.9333 5.1333 5.2667 5.3000

1.04826 1.19578 1.08066 1.39333

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 were both “moderately acceptable” in taste as rated by the panelists. On the 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 The sensory characteristics of the main course, the chicken scallopini across treatment are summarized in Tables 6 to 10.

Table 6. General appearance of chicken scallopini across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 300 g pako Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

6.1667 5.2333 4.8667 4.8000

Std. General Appearance Deviation Interpretation Highly Acceptable .64772 Slightly Acceptable .89763 1.19578 Slightly Acceptable 1.09545 Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

As shown in Table 6, the highest weighted mean of 6.1667 was recorded in the control (T0) or chicken scallopini without wild green indicating that the general appearance of chicken scallopini

in the control (Lot 0) was “highly

acceptable” to panelists. This was followed by Lot 1 or chicken scallopini with 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 g pansit-pansitan) were “slightly acceptable” to panelists with weighted mean of 4.8667 and 4.80, respectively.

48

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.

Table 7. Color of chicken scallopini across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 300 g pako Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.6000 5.3000 5.0667 5.1000

1.24845 1.02217 1.25762 .99481

Color Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 “moderately acceptable to the panel members. The remaining experimental lots , 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 wild greens and chicken scallopini with 300 g pako (T1).

Table 8. Aroma of chicken scallopini across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 300 g pako Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.9000 5.3333 5.4333 5.1000

.99481 .84418 1.22287 1.32222

Aroma Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 g alugbati (T2) were comparable in aroma. 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.

Table 9. Texture of chicken scallopini across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 300 g pako Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.6000 5.1667 5.2667 5.2000

1.06997 .94989 1.17248 1.06350

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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

Table 10. Taste of chicken scallopini across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 300 g pako Lot 2 = 450 g alugbati Lot 3 = 950 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

6.0333 4.8333 4.9333 5.2667

.99943 1.23409 .98027 1.36289

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 The sensory characteristics of the green salad across treatment are summarized in Tables 16 to 20.

Table 16. General appearance of green salad across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce Lot 1 = 350 g pako Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

6.1000 5.8333 5.6000 5.4333

.88474 .94989 1.13259 1.10433

General Appearance Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 appearance of green salad in the control (Lot 0) was “moderately acceptable” to panelists. This was followed by Lot 1 or green salad with 350 g pako (x̅ = 5.8333) indicating that it was also “moderately acceptable” to the panelists. Similarly, green salad in Lot 2 (380 g alugbati) and in Lot 3 (800 g pansit-pansitan) were “moderately acceptable” to the panelists with weighted means of 4.8667 and 4.80, respectively.

53

The results suggest that green salad with and without wild greens were comparable in general appearance since all experimental lots were rated as “moderately acceptable”.

Table 17. Color of green salad across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce Lot 1 = 350 g pako Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.7667 5.5333 5.5000 5.4333

1.10433 1.50249 1.27982 1.07265

Color Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 and Lot 3 had weighted means of 5.5 and 5.4333, respectively. Results revealed that the color of green salad were similar across experimental lots. This means that green salad with or without wild greens had generally comparable evaluations in terms of color.

54

Table 18. Aroma of green salad across treatment Treatment

N

Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce Lot 1 = 350 g pako Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan

Mean

30 6.0000 30 5.4667 30 5.4333 30 5.8000

Std. Deviation 1.17444 1.38298 1.10433 1.18613

Aroma Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

Table 18 shows that with regards to aroma, green salad produced in all experimental lots had similar adjectival ratings of “moderately acceptable” as 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 greens were comparable in aroma.

55

Table 19. Texture of green salad across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce Lot 1 = 350 g pako Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

6.0667 5.8000 5.6000 5.5667

1.01483 1.24291 1.30252 1.19434

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

Data on Table 19 shows that the textures of green salads across all experimental lots were “moderately acceptable” to the panelists. The highest 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

Table 20. Taste of green salad across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = 250 g lettuce Lot 1 = 350 g pako Lot 2 = 380 g alugbati Lot 3 = 800 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

6.2000 5.7000 5.4000 5.3667

1.03057 1.05536 1.16264 1.18855

Texture Interpretation Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 with wild greens were rated lower in taste by the panelists.

57

D. Buco Smoothies The sensory characteristics of the buco smoothies across treatment are summarized in Tables 21 to 25.

Table 21. General appearance of buco smoothies across treatment Treatment

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 15 g pako Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan

30 30 30 30

5.7667 4.7333 5.1333 5.1667

1.38174 .98027 1.07425 1.28877

General Appearance Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 acceptable” to panelists. The remaining experimental lots prepared with wild greens, on the other hand, were only “slightly acceptable” in general appearance. The results imply that buco smoothies without wild greens or the control had more favorable ratings in general appearance compared to buco smoothies with wild greens.

58

Table 22. Color of buco smoothies across treatment Treatment Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 15 g pako Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

30 30 30 30

5.8000 5.0000 5.0667 5.1333

1.09545 1.23176 1.28475 .97320

Color Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

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 buco smoothies in the control (Lot 0) was “moderately acceptable” to panelists. On the other hand, the remaining experimental lots prepared with wild greens were only “slightly acceptable” in color. 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

Table 23. Aroma of buco smoothies across treatment Treatment

N

Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 15 g pako Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan

Mean

30 5.9667 30 5.4333 30 4.8333 30 5.0667

Std. Deviation 1.35146 1.22287 1.01992 1.38796

Aroma Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

With regards to aroma, buco smoothies produced in the control (Lot 0 = without wild green) and in Lot 1 (15 g pako) were rated as “moderately acceptable” by the panelists as supported by the weighted means of 5.9667 and 5.4333, respectively. On the other hand, buco smoothies produced in Lot 2 (12.5 g alugbati) and in Lot 3 (80 g pansit-pansitan) were rated as “slightly acceptable” 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 12.5 g alugbati (Lot 2).

60

Table 24. Texture of buco smoothies across treatment Treatment Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 15 g pako Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

30 30 30 30

5.8667 5.3000 5.2000 5.5000

1.19578 1.02217 1.29721 1.00858

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

In terms of texture, Table 24 shows that buco smoothies produced without wild green (Lot 0), with 15 g pako (Lot 1) and with 80 g pansit-pansitan (Lot 3) had similar ratings of “moderately acceptable”. The highest weighted mean of 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 with weighted mean of 5.2. The results indicate that buco smoothies without wild green (control), buco smoothies with 15 g pako (Lot 1) and buco smoothies with 80 g pansit-pansitan (Lot 3) were generally comparable in texture. Conversely, the texture of buco smoothies prepared with 12.5 g alugbati or Lot 2 had the lowest rating.

61

Table 25. Taste of buco smoothies across treatment Treatment Lot 0 = without wild green Lot 1 = 15 g pako Lot 2 = 12.5 g alugbati Lot 3 = 80 g pansit-pansitan

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

30 30 30 30

6.2000 5.4333 4.7333 4.7667

1.12648 1.33089 1.28475 1.10433

Texture Interpretation Moderately Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Acceptable

Scale: Weighted Mean for Interpretation

Adjectival Interpretation

6.142 - 7.000 5.285 - 6.141 4.428 - 5.284 3.571 - 4.427 2.714 - 3.570 1.857 - 2.713 1.000 - 1.856

Highly Acceptable Moderately Acceptable Slightly Acceptable Neither Acceptable nor Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Moderately Unacceptable Highly Unacceptable

As shown in Table 20 the taste of buco smoothies in the control (T0) and Lot 1 (15 g pako) were “moderately acceptable” to the panelists as supported by 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 taste that were “moderately acceptable” to the panelists. Data suggest that the taste of buco smoothies prepared without wild green was comparable to the taste of buco smoothies prepared with 15 g pako. In contrast, the taste of buco smoothies with 12.5 g alugbati had the lowest rating in taste.

62

Difference in the Sensory Characteristics of the Developed Gourmet Meal Prepared using Three Local Wild Greens Analysis of variance was used to determine the differences in the sensory characteristics of the developed gourmet meal using local wild greens across treatment. Tables 26 to 30 summarize the results of the statistical analysis.

Table 26. Results of the Friedman Analysis of Variance on the sensory characteristics of clear soup across treatment N

df

Fr value

pvalue

Decision

Interpretation

General Appearance

30

3

12.149**

0.007

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Color

30

3

15.397**

0.002

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Aroma

30

3

20.904**

0.000

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Texture

30

2

8.457ns

0.057

Accept Ho

Not significant

Taste

30

2

12.041**

0.007

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Parameter

Overall 30 2 10.765* 0.013 Reject Ho Significant Acceptability ** = significant at 1% level; *= significant at 5% level, ns = not significant,

As shown in Table 26, highly significant differences were found in the general appearance (Fr = 12.149, p = 0.007), color (Fr = 15.397, p = 0.002), aroma (Fr = 20.904, p = >.001), and taste (Fr = 12.041, p = 0.007) of clear soup across experimental treatments. Meanwhile, significant difference was found in 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

characteristics of clear soup in terms of general appearance, color, aroma and taste prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. Likewise, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the overall acceptability of clear soup prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. On the other hand, no significant difference was found in the texture of clear soup across treatment. The computed Fr of 8.457 was not significant at 5 percent level (p = 0.057). Hence, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the textures of clear soup prepared with three local wild greens was accepted.

Table 27. Results of the Friedman Analysis of Variance on the sensory characteristics of chicken scallopini across treatment N

df

Fr value

pvalue

Decision

Interpretation

General Appearance

30

2

35.656**

0.000

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Color

30

2

7.068ns

0.070

Accept Ho

Not significant

Aroma

30

2

10.873*

0.012

Reject Ho

Significant

Texture

30

2

6.600ns

0.086

Accept Ho

Not significant

Taste

30

2

17.019**

0.001

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Parameter

Overall 30 2 15.462** 0.001 Reject Ho Highly Significant Acceptability ** = significant at 1% level; *= significant at 5% level, ns = not significant,

Data on Table 27 show that, highly significant differences were found in the general appearance (Fr = 35.656, p = > 0.001), taste (Fr = 17.019, p = 0.001), and overall acceptability (Fr = 15.462, p = 0.001) of chicken scallopini

64

across experimental lots. Meanwhile, significant difference was found in the aroma of chicken scallopini across treatment (Fr = 10.873, p = 0.012). This indicates that the null hypothesis of no significant differences in the sensory characteristics of chicken scallopini in terms of general appearance, aroma and taste prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. Likewise, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the overall acceptability of chicken scallopini prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. 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.

Table 28. Results of the Friedman Analysis of Variance on the sensory characteristics of green salad across treatment N

df

Fr value

pvalue

Decision

Interpretation

General Appearance

30

2

17.205**

0.001

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Color

30

2

3.197ns

0.362

Accept Ho

Not significant

Aroma

30

2

8.392*

0.039

Reject Ho

Significant

Texture

30

2

6.518ns

0.089

Accept Ho

Not significant

Taste

30

2

17.675**

0.001

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Parameter

Overall 30 2 3.367ns 0.338 Accept Ho Not significant Acceptability ** = significant at 1% level; *= significant at 5% level, ns = not significant,

65

Table 28 shows that, highly significant differences were found in the 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 that the null hypothesis of no significant differences in the sensory characteristics of green salad in terms of general appearance, aroma and taste prepared with three local wild greens was rejected. 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 significant difference in the overall acceptability of green salad prepared with three local wild greens was accepted.

66

Table 29. Results of the Friedman Analysis of Variance on the sensory characteristics of buco smoothies across treatment N

df

Fr value

pvalue

Decision

Interpretation

General Appearance

30

2

19.279**

0.000

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Color

30

2

10.394*

0.015

Reject Ho

Significant

Aroma

30

2

18.036**

0.000

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Texture

30

2

4.004ns

0.261

Accept Ho

Not significant

Taste

30

2

25.972**

0.000

Reject Ho

Highly Significant

Parameter

Overall 30 2 27.173** 0.000 Reject Ho Highly Significant Acceptability ** = significant at 1% level; *= significant at 5% level, ns = not significant,

As shown in Table 29, significant differences were found in the sensory characteristics of buco smoothies across experimental treatments. All computed 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 imply that the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the sensory characteristics of buco smoothies was rejected. Meanwhile, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the overall acceptability of buco smoothies prepared with three local wild greens was also rejected.

67

The results pointed to the existence of heterogeneity in the sensory characteristics and overall acceptability of buco smoothies prepared with local wild greens.

Difference in the Ratings of the Two Groups of Panelist such as: a) Trained Panelists (Culinary Instructors), and b) Experts (Chefs) with regard to Sensory Characteristics and Overall Acceptability of the Developed Gourmet Meal Prepared with Three Local Wild Greens such as Alugbati, Pako and Pansit-Pansitan

68

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 different levels of wild green were evaluated in terms of the recommended Vitamin A intake for Filipino adults as shown in Tables 31 to 34.

Table 31. Vitamin A content of clear soup prepared with 250 g alugbati (Lot 2) Quantity (in grams)

Vit. A Content (per 100 g)

Cauliflower, chopped Alugbati, chopped Butter Onion, roughly chopped Salt Garlic, chopped Chicken or vegetable broth Freshly ground white pepper Freshly grated nutmeg Finely chopped parsley

100 250 45 150 3 12 400 1 1 3

8 456 411 Tr 0 0 Tr 0 258

Total Formula (in g) Recommended Vitamin A for adults (based on RENI) Males, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Females, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+

965

Ingredients

Total Vit. A Content (µg RE) 8.00 1140.00 184.95 Tr 0 0 Tr 0 7.74 1340.69

Vit. A (µg RE) 550 550 550 550 500 500 500 500

69

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 than meet the recommended vitamin A intake for Filipino adults.

Table 32. Vitamin A content of chicken scallopini prepared with 950 g pansitpansitan (Lot 3)

Ingredients 6 skinless, boneless chicken breast halves Pansit-pansitan Cloves garlic, pressed Butter, softened All-purpose flour Salt and ground black pepper to taste Sliced mushrooms Capers, or to taste Lemon juice White wine Chicken-flavored demi-glace, or to taste Chopped fresh parsley, or to taste 6 lemon slices Total Formula (in g)

Quantity (in grams)

Vit. A Content (per 100 g)

600

31

Total Vit. A Content (µg RE) 186.0

950 6 170 187

208 0 411 0 0

1,976.0 0 698.7 0 0

10 300 20 32 90 90

0 138 Tr 0 27

0 27.6 Tr 0 24.3

10

258

25.8

30

Tr

2495

Tr 2938.4

70

Table 32 continued… Recommended Vitamin A for adults (based on RENI) Males, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Females, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+

Vit. A (µg RE) 550 550 550 550 500 500 500 500

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 formulation across treatment. As shown in Table 32, the vitamin A content of chicken scallopini prepared with 950 g pansit-pansitan (Lot 3) totaled to 2938.4 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) Quantity (in grams)

Vit. A Content (per 100 g)

Lettuce, chopped Pako, chopped Cucumber Carrot Tomatoes, quartered Canned tuna, drained and flaked Hard-boiled egg, sliced Salt and pepper Vinaigrette Croutons

150 350 300 150 250 320

300 517 Tr 1668 63 0

65 12 5 50

89 0 0 7.5

Total Formula (in g) Recommended Vitamin A for adults (based on RENI) Males, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Females, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+

1652

Ingredients

Total Vit. A Content (µg RE) 450.0 1,809.5 Tr 2,502.0 157.5 0 57.9 0 0 3.8 4980.6

Vit. A (µg RE) 550 550 550 550 500 500 500 500

Except for the control (Lot 0), green salad prepared with 350 g pako (Lot 1) was the most acceptable formulation across treatment. As presented in Table 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) Quantity (in grams)

Vit. A Content (per 100 g)

Pako, mashed Buco meat, shredded Coco sap Evaporated milk Crushed ice

15 186 15 120 250

517 0 0 116 0

Total Formula (in g) Recommended Vitamin A for adults (based on RENI) Males, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Females, y 19-29 30-49 50-64 65+

586

Ingredients

Total Vit. A Content (µg RE) 77.6 0 0 139.2 0 216.75

Vit. A (µg RE) 550 550 550 550 500 500 500 500

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 vitamin A for Filipino adults.

73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afolayan, A. and Jimoh, F. (2009). Nutritional quality of some wild leafy vegetables in South Africa. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition 60 (5): 424-431. Beaton, G.H., Martorell, R., Aronson, K., Edmonston, B., McCabe, G., Ross, A. and Harvey, B. (1993). Effectiveness of vitamin A supplementation in the control of young child morbidity and mortality in developing countries, United Nations Administrative Committee on Coordination/Subcommittee on Nutrition. ACC/SCN State-of-the-Art Series Nutrition Policy Discussion Paper No. 13, Toronto, 1993. Block, G. (1991). Dietary guidelines and the results of food consumption surveys. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53, 356S–357S.

74

Brinlee, D. (u.d.). What Makes A Food A Gourmet Food? Retrieved on October 17, 2012 from http://www.askdeb.com/food/gourmet/ Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. (2006). Alugbati production. Retrieved November

8,

2012

from

http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=12&pageid=59555B5A1D 737166767A78671D056D677A1D066C77667D646118056D74617B6461 1A4A5A58 Cohen, L., Manion, L and Morrison, K. R. B. (2007). Research Methods in Education. 6th edition. London: Routledge. Couplan, F. Guide nutritionnel des plantes sauvages et cultivèes. France: Delachaux & Niestle. De Caluwé, E., Halamová, K., and Van Damme, P. (2010). Tamarindus indica L. – A review of traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology. Afrika Focus 23(1): 53-83 Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR]. (2003). DENR Recommends No. 12 – Foods from the Wilderness. Compiled by Polinag, M.A. Ecosystem Research and Development Bureau, DENR, 20 p. Department of Trade and Industry [DTI], Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources [PCCARD] and Department of Science and Technology [DOST]. (2009). Alugbati Production Guide. Retrieved November

10,

2012

http://www.dti.gov.ph/uploads/DownloadableFiles/alugbati_prod.pdf

from

75

dos Santos, D. P.R., de Lima Moreira, D., Franklin Guimarães, E. and Coelho Kaplan, M.A. (2001). Essential oil analysis of 10 Piperaceae species from the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Phytochemistry 58, 547-551. Ensminger, A. H., Ensminger, M. E., Konlande, J. E. & Robson, J. R. K. (1995). The Concise Encyclopedia of Foods and Nutrition. London: CRC Press. Faber, M. and Benade, A. J. S. (2002). Integrated home-gardening and community-based growth monitoring activities to alleviated vitamin A deficiency in a rural village in South Africa. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, 32, 1-11. Food and Nutrition Research Institute- Department of Science and Technology [FNRI-DOST]. (1997). The Philippine Food Composition Tables. Food and Nutrition Research Institute- Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST) (1997). The Philippine Food Composition Tables. Frank, R.A., Ducheney, K. & Mize, S.J.S. (1989). Strawberry odor, but not red color, enhances the sweetness of sucrose solutions. Chem. Sens. 14, 371-377. Halpern, B.P. (1977). Psychophysics of Taste. In: Beauchamp, G.K., Bartoshuk, L.M. (eds.). Tasting and smelling. Handbook of perception and cognition. 2nd Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, 77-123. Hands, E. S. (2000). Nutrient in foods. USA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. Hasler, C.M. (2002). Functional foods: benefits, concerns and challenges—a position paper from the American council on science and health. Journal of Nutrition 132, 3772–3781.

76

Irving, M. (2009). The Forager Handbook. UK: Ebury Press, 2009. Kagyung, R., Gajurel, P.R., Rethy, P. and Singh, B. (2010). Ethnomedicinal plants used for gastro-intestinal diseases by Adi tribes of Dehang-Debang Biosphere Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 9(3), 496-501. Kamp, D. (2006). The United States of Arugula: How We Became a Gourmet Nation. Doubleday Broadway. Kaur, T. J., and Kochar, G. K. (2005). Organoleptic evaluation and retention of vitamin

C

in

commonly

consumed

food

preparations

using

underexploited greens. Indian J. Nutr. Diet, 42: 425-431. Kendrick, P. (2012). The Intolerant Gourmet, Pippa Kendrick, HarperCollins Publishers, London, UK, 240 P. Khan M. R. & Omoloso, A. D. (2002). Antibacterial activity of Hygrophila stricta and Peperomia Pellucida. Fitoterapia, 73(3), 251-254. Kulkarni, L. R. (2003). Documentation, valuearization and promotion of underutilized foods for nutrition security of school children. Ph.D. Thesis., Uni. Agri. Sci., Dharwad. Lugod, G.C. and de Padua, L. (1989). Wild food plants of the Philippines. Vol. 1, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, 66 p. MacFie, H.J.H. (2007). Consumer Led Food Product Development. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK. McGrath, C. (January 26, 2007). In Arizona back country, a gourmet life. International Herald Tribune.

77

Meilgaard, M., Civille, C.V. & Carr, B.T. (2007). Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 4th ed. CRC, Boca Raton, FL. Moskowitz, H.R., Beckley, J.H. & Resurreccion, A.V.A. (2006). Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, I A. Nande, P., Dudhmogre, S. and Vali, S. A. (2007). Evaluation of nutritive value and acceptability of recipes prepared from spinach and betel leaves. The Indian J. Nutr. Diet, 44: 476-483. Novelli, N. (2004). Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases. Butterworth-Heinemann. Pierce, J. & Halpern, B.P. (1996). Orthonasal and retronasal identification based upon vapor phase input from common substances. Chem. Sens. 21, 529543. Pieroni, A., Janiak, V., Durr, C.M., Ludeke, S., Trachsel, E., Heinrich, M., 2002. In vitro antioxidant activity of non-cultivated vegetables of ethnic Albanians in southern Italy. Phythotherapy Research 16, 467–473. Pomeranz, Y. & Meloan, CE. (1994). Food analysis: Theory and practice. Chapman & Hall Corp., New York. Reddy, V. (1999). Prevention of micronutrient deficiencies – the need for a foodbased approach. World Agricultural Forum 1999, World Congress. Ross, A.C. (1992). Vitamin A status: relationship to immunity and the antibody response. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 200, 303-320.

78

Shtayeh, M. S., Jamous, R. M., Al-Shafie, J. H., Elgharabah, W. A. (2008). Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): A comparative study. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed, 4, 13. 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 present, the future. The Medical Journal of Australia 185, S4–24. Taylor, A.J. & Linforth, R.S.T. (1996). Flavor research in the mouth. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 7, 444-447. Tompson, J. and Manore, M. (2005). Nutrition; an applied approach. New York: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

79

80

Appendix A SCORE CARD FOR EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPED GOURMET MEAL

Name of the Judge: ________________________________ Date: ___________________________ 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

Soup PARAMETER 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

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Salad Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Main Course Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Dessert Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

82

Soup PARAMETER 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

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Salad Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Main Course Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Dessert Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

83

Soup PARAMETER 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

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Salad Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Main Course Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Dessert Lot 3

Lot 0

Lot 1

Lot 2

Lot 3

84

Appendix B THEORETICAL NUTRIENT CONTENT OF DEVELOPED GOURMET MEAL

85

Appendix Table 1. Nutrient composition per 100 grams of each ingredient used in the production of “chicken scallopini”

CHICKEN SCALLOPINI INGREDIENTS

NUTRIENT COMPOSITION Water (g)

Energy (kcal)

Protein (g)

Fat (g)

Carbohydrate (g)

Crude Fiber (g)

Ash (g)

Calcium (mg)

Phosphorus (mg)

Iron (mg)

Retinol (µg)

β– carotene (µg)

Vit. A (RE) (µg)

Thiamin (mg)

Riboflavin (mg)

Niacin (mg)

Ascorbic Acid (mg)

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

255

10.95

3.26

64.81

26.5

-

437

173

28.86

0

156

299

0.109

0.24

1.142

21

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

23

2.36

0.86

4.89

3.2

40

10

1.67

0

83

138

0.018

0.139

0.652

0

Ground black pepper Mushrooms -canned

93.6

Capers 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”

CLEAR SOUP INGREDIENTS

NUTRIENT COMPOSITION Water (g)

Energy (kcal)

Protein (g)

Fat (g)

Carbohydrate (g)

Crude Fiber (g)

Ash (g)

Calcium (mg)

Phosphorus (mg)

Iron (mg)

Retinol (µg)

β– carotene (µg)

Vit. A (RE) (µg)

Thiamin (mg)

Riboflavin (mg)

Niacin (mg)

Ascorbic Acid (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”

GREEN SALAD INGREDIENTS

NUTRIENT COMPOSITION Water (g)

Energy (kcal)

Protein (g)

Fat (g)

Carbohydrate (g)

Crude Fiber (g)

Ash (g)

Calcium (mg)

Phosphorus (mg)

Iron (mg)

Retinol (µg)

β– carotene (µg)

Vit. A (RE) (µg)

Thiamin (mg)

Riboflavin (mg)

Niacin (mg)

Ascorbic Acid (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

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

Croutons, seasoned

88

Appendix Table 4. Nutrient composition per 100 grams of each ingredient used in the production of “buco smoothies” NUTRIENT COMPOSITION

BUCO SMOOTHIES INGREDIENTS

Water (g)

Energy (kcal)

Protein (g)

Fat (g)

Carbohydrate (g)

Crude Fiber (g)

Ash (g)

Calcium (mg)

Phosphorus (mg)

Iron (mg)

Retinol (µg)

β– carotene (µg)

Vit. A (RE) (µg)

Thiamin (mg)

Riboflavin (mg)

Niacin (mg)

Ascorbic Acid (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

Ice, crushed

99.8