Nutr 214 - Taste Panel Project Writeup
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Nutr 214 - Taste Panel Project Writeup as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,813
- Pages: 9
NUTR 214 – Food Fundamentals Taste Panel Project The Comparison of Two Gluten-Free Soft Oat Chocolate Chip Cookies By: Jordan Meriem Chiad..Mak, Fadia Nasralla, Christine Racicot Supervised by: Ms. Judy Campbell-Gordon R.D.
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to conduct a taste panel in order to determine differences between two batches of gluten-free soft oat chocolate chip cookies. Introduction: The protein gluten plays a major role in the structure of baked goods. Gluten is formed when wheat flour in addition to water is kneaded. Gluten forms cross links in the dough and a microscopic network of proteins. This brings elasticity to the final product, allows for the firming of the flour mixture and permits the batter to rise during baking. Wheat flour contains the most gluten forming protein, which contributes to a light and porous texture. In gluten free baking, many substitutes are used in attempt to emulate the gluten’s texture. The recipe used in this project uses other proteins such as those found in soy and rice flours as well as proteins found in egg to imitate the function of gluten. This project attempts to further investigate the challenges in gluten-free baking, paying particular attention to the effect of gluten-free recipes on texture. Setting: The conducted
taste at
the
panel
was
Macdonald
Campus of McGill University on November 23rd, 2009. Student volunteers from the class were used as the sample population for this project. The taste panel room is located in room ___. This room was equipped with red lighting in order to eliminate the ability to distinguish
colour
differences
between each sample. Testers Figure 1 – Test panel room with individual booths and bread-box style windows.
were confined to individual booths to eliminate distractions and reactions from other students.
Method: Two
batches
of
cookies were made from scratch using gluten free ingredients. In order to compare the two cookies, the baking process was followed
as
possible
to
closely the
as
written
instructions. The weight of each ingredient was also measured
in
order
to
compare the amount of ingredients in each batch. The first batch was baked by
the
food
lab
Figure 2 – A sample tray with each cookie coded with four digit numbers.
coordinator and the second batch was baked by us students. The batch baked by the food lab coordinator had one fundamental change in the recipe, of which the test conductors and samplists were not aware of. The Recipe used is as follows: Recipe: Soft Oat Cookies Makes about 24 Time of preparation: 10-15 minutes Cooking time: 8-10 minutes Ingredients
Quantity
Weights
Procedure
(g) margarine sugar, brown, packed egg, large vanilla
125 ml
101
Preheat the oven to 375 F.
125 ml
103
In a large bowl, cream margarine with the sugar, mix well.
1 (approximat ely 60mL) 5 ml
54 5
Incorporate egg and the vanilla, mix well using an electric beater for a uniform batter.
oat flour (GF, Cream Hill
185 ml
82
soy flour
60 ml
73
brown rice flour
60 ml
37
baking powder
2 ml
3
salt
1 ml
xantham gum
0.5 ml
1
60 ml
52
Estates)
chocolate chips, semi-sweet Approximate Total:
434.5
In a different bowl, mix and sift the 5 dry remaining ingredients. Add this mixture to the creamed one with a mixing spoon.
Mix in the chocolate chips evenly in the batter.
negligibl e
511g
Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper, and drop batter by spoonful onto sheet at about 4 cm from each other Bake for 8-10 minutes in the centre of the oven, till light golden brown. Once done, remove sheet from oven, and let cookies sit for a couple of minutes before removing them from the baking sheet.
A total of 14 panellists comprised of 13 females and 1 male were involved in the experiment. As the taste panel room had a limited number of booths, the test was conducted in two groups: one group of eight and a group of six. In order to eliminate bias based on the sample order, the order of the samples given were switched for one group. This is done because a tester for example may associate the first cookie tasted as being more moist or crumbly than the second sample. In order to further discourage biases in the results, each sample was coded with a four
digit number. As a panellist may associate the number ‘one’ with a moister, chewier cookie, and number ‘two’ with a less moist and less chewy cookie, using four digit numbers decreases the chance of such subconscious thinking.
Questionnaire: During the taste panel, testers were asked to fill out a questionnaire, which focused on the comparison of texture between each cookie. The questionnaire given is as follows: Taste Panel Project: Soft Chocolate Chip Oat Cookies November 23rd, 2009 Please taste each sample and answer the following questions. For questions 1-4, please circle one: 1. Which cookie is more moist? 9845
6712
2. Which cookie is more chewy? 9845
6712
3. Which cookie is more soft? 9845
6712
1. Which cookie do you prefer? 9845
6712
2. For the cookie preferred in question 4, when it comes to texture, why do you prefer this cookie?
The questionnaire had emphasis on texture, including questions regarding moisture, chewiness, softness and personal preference. In the first question, the element of moisture was included as it is a general indicator of texture and is associated with the cooking methods used. As many gluten-free cookies may be less chewy due to the lack of cross links and microscopic network of proteins, we believe chewiness is a factor that should be included in the questionnaire. As the recipe is named ‘soft oat cookies’ we decided to test the softness of the cookies to determine if these baked goods were indeed soft. In addition to the three questions on texture, we asked panellists which cookie they ultimately preferred and why this cookie was preferred.
Results: The following graphs illustrate the data collected from panellists:
Graph5,1-the Themost comparison the differences perceived For question commonofresponse behindinthe team’s moistness cookie being more of the cookies versus the lab coordinator’s cookies preferred wasteam’s due to the cookie’s softness. Please see attached surveys for additional responses. Analysis: Graph 2- The comparison of the differences in perceived chewiness of the team’s cookies cookies found the cookies The results of this studyversus found the thatlab thecoordinator’s majority of students made by us were moister, softer but less chewy. Eleven out of fourteen panellists Graph 3- The comparison of the differences in perceived softness of preferred the cookie made by us. When we use these results on an expanded the team’s cookies versus the lab coordinator’s cookies statistical table to estimate significance in a paired-preference test, we found that the probability of our results were above 0.05%. This means that the results of number of taste panellists which preferred the team’s questionGraph 4 are 4notThe significant. cookies versus the lab coordinator’s cookies When we look at questions 1 to 3, which focuses on moisture, softness and chewiness, none of these results are significant on an expanded statistical table of significance. This means that although the majority of panellists prefer one cookie over another, these results may be due to chance. Ways to eliminate this insignificance are discussed in the ‘improvements’ section.
Discussion: In this study, the knowledge gained by the results could potentially benefit companies in the food industry. In the gluten-free cookie market, many companies will conduct tests to determine which cookie recipes are more palatable not only in terms of taste, but also in terms of moisture, chewiness and softness. This information could potentially help food companies decide which recipes to produce and sell, which may increase their chances of higher profits and sales. Improvements: Several improvements can be made in order to make this experiment more accurate and attain significant results: Firstly, one possible error in the experiment could be the inconsistency from cookie to cookie. Since all the cookies could not fit on one sheet at one time, each batch of cookies were cooked at a different time, resulting in cookies of differing doneness. In order to eliminate this error, we would need to use a larger oven with larger baking sheets. Another possible source of error comes from the temperatures of each sample. As the cookies made by the food lab coordinator were done significantly ahead of time before the next batch was made, during the test panel, some of the cookies were still warm and the chocolate chips partially melted. The panellists may have taken note of that either consciously or subconsciously and may have created a bias in the results. One issue in trying to reduce confounding factors in this experiment was to make the two batches of cookies uniform size in order to eliminate possible biases. However, it was difficult to make them exactly the same size. The problem of having cookies of varying size would mean that the cookies were likely to be different in doneness. In addition to varying doneness, another bias may stem from the fact that a panellist may associate a larger cookie with one that is more preferable. One way to ensure more identical sized cookies would be to use cookie cutters and cut sizes of identical thickness.
In order to increase the chance of significant results, if we were to repeat the experiment again, a greater number of panellists would be required. By increasing sample size, we are eliminating random error and increasing the chance of attaining significant results Our group also believes that the addition of chocolate chips within the cookies may distract panellists from purely analyzing the texture of these cookies. In order to focus on the purpose of the experiment (which is to analyze the texture of the gluten free batter), eliminating the chocolate chips may allow panellists to solely focus on the texture of the batter, instead of the chocolate chips. This may increase the accuracy of the results. Conclusion: This project covers the comparison of two recipes of gluten free soft oat chocolate chip cookies. After baking each batch, we conducted a taste panel with 14 panellists in attempt to determine the differences between the two. Our panel results found that the majority of testers found that the cookies made by our team were moister and softer but less chewy. Overall, the majority of testers also preferred our team’s cookies. However, when we use a test of significance, we found that our results were not significant. This means that, we would need a higher number of panellists to reach a concrete conclusion. When it comes to the challenge of gluten-free baking, the most difficult aspect is to emulate texture. The information gained from experiments like these can be used by chefs and dieticians to help those with celiac disease, whom have to overcome the challenges of avoiding wheat products.
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to conduct a taste panel in order to determine differences between two batches of gluten-free soft oat chocolate chip cookies. Introduction: The protein gluten plays a major role in the structure of baked goods. Gluten is formed when wheat flour in addition to water is kneaded. Gluten forms cross links in the dough and a microscopic network of proteins. This brings elasticity to the final product, allows for the firming of the flour mixture and permits the batter to rise during baking. Wheat flour contains the most gluten forming protein, which contributes to a light and porous texture. In gluten free baking, many substitutes are used in attempt to emulate the gluten’s texture. The recipe used in this project uses other proteins such as those found in soy and rice flours as well as proteins found in egg to imitate the function of gluten. This project attempts to further investigate the challenges in gluten-free baking, paying particular attention to the effect of gluten-free recipes on texture. Setting: The conducted
taste at
the
panel
was
Macdonald
Campus of McGill University on November 23rd, 2009. Student volunteers from the class were used as the sample population for this project. The taste panel room is located in room ___. This room was equipped with red lighting in order to eliminate the ability to distinguish
colour
differences
between each sample. Testers Figure 1 – Test panel room with individual booths and bread-box style windows.
were confined to individual booths to eliminate distractions and reactions from other students.
Method: Two
batches
of
cookies were made from scratch using gluten free ingredients. In order to compare the two cookies, the baking process was followed
as
possible
to
closely the
as
written
instructions. The weight of each ingredient was also measured
in
order
to
compare the amount of ingredients in each batch. The first batch was baked by
the
food
lab
Figure 2 – A sample tray with each cookie coded with four digit numbers.
coordinator and the second batch was baked by us students. The batch baked by the food lab coordinator had one fundamental change in the recipe, of which the test conductors and samplists were not aware of. The Recipe used is as follows: Recipe: Soft Oat Cookies Makes about 24 Time of preparation: 10-15 minutes Cooking time: 8-10 minutes Ingredients
Quantity
Weights
Procedure
(g) margarine sugar, brown, packed egg, large vanilla
125 ml
101
Preheat the oven to 375 F.
125 ml
103
In a large bowl, cream margarine with the sugar, mix well.
1 (approximat ely 60mL) 5 ml
54 5
Incorporate egg and the vanilla, mix well using an electric beater for a uniform batter.
oat flour (GF, Cream Hill
185 ml
82
soy flour
60 ml
73
brown rice flour
60 ml
37
baking powder
2 ml
3
salt
1 ml
xantham gum
0.5 ml
1
60 ml
52
Estates)
chocolate chips, semi-sweet Approximate Total:
434.5
In a different bowl, mix and sift the 5 dry remaining ingredients. Add this mixture to the creamed one with a mixing spoon.
Mix in the chocolate chips evenly in the batter.
negligibl e
511g
Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper, and drop batter by spoonful onto sheet at about 4 cm from each other Bake for 8-10 minutes in the centre of the oven, till light golden brown. Once done, remove sheet from oven, and let cookies sit for a couple of minutes before removing them from the baking sheet.
A total of 14 panellists comprised of 13 females and 1 male were involved in the experiment. As the taste panel room had a limited number of booths, the test was conducted in two groups: one group of eight and a group of six. In order to eliminate bias based on the sample order, the order of the samples given were switched for one group. This is done because a tester for example may associate the first cookie tasted as being more moist or crumbly than the second sample. In order to further discourage biases in the results, each sample was coded with a four
digit number. As a panellist may associate the number ‘one’ with a moister, chewier cookie, and number ‘two’ with a less moist and less chewy cookie, using four digit numbers decreases the chance of such subconscious thinking.
Questionnaire: During the taste panel, testers were asked to fill out a questionnaire, which focused on the comparison of texture between each cookie. The questionnaire given is as follows: Taste Panel Project: Soft Chocolate Chip Oat Cookies November 23rd, 2009 Please taste each sample and answer the following questions. For questions 1-4, please circle one: 1. Which cookie is more moist? 9845
6712
2. Which cookie is more chewy? 9845
6712
3. Which cookie is more soft? 9845
6712
1. Which cookie do you prefer? 9845
6712
2. For the cookie preferred in question 4, when it comes to texture, why do you prefer this cookie?
The questionnaire had emphasis on texture, including questions regarding moisture, chewiness, softness and personal preference. In the first question, the element of moisture was included as it is a general indicator of texture and is associated with the cooking methods used. As many gluten-free cookies may be less chewy due to the lack of cross links and microscopic network of proteins, we believe chewiness is a factor that should be included in the questionnaire. As the recipe is named ‘soft oat cookies’ we decided to test the softness of the cookies to determine if these baked goods were indeed soft. In addition to the three questions on texture, we asked panellists which cookie they ultimately preferred and why this cookie was preferred.
Results: The following graphs illustrate the data collected from panellists:
Graph5,1-the Themost comparison the differences perceived For question commonofresponse behindinthe team’s moistness cookie being more of the cookies versus the lab coordinator’s cookies preferred wasteam’s due to the cookie’s softness. Please see attached surveys for additional responses. Analysis: Graph 2- The comparison of the differences in perceived chewiness of the team’s cookies cookies found the cookies The results of this studyversus found the thatlab thecoordinator’s majority of students made by us were moister, softer but less chewy. Eleven out of fourteen panellists Graph 3- The comparison of the differences in perceived softness of preferred the cookie made by us. When we use these results on an expanded the team’s cookies versus the lab coordinator’s cookies statistical table to estimate significance in a paired-preference test, we found that the probability of our results were above 0.05%. This means that the results of number of taste panellists which preferred the team’s questionGraph 4 are 4notThe significant. cookies versus the lab coordinator’s cookies When we look at questions 1 to 3, which focuses on moisture, softness and chewiness, none of these results are significant on an expanded statistical table of significance. This means that although the majority of panellists prefer one cookie over another, these results may be due to chance. Ways to eliminate this insignificance are discussed in the ‘improvements’ section.
Discussion: In this study, the knowledge gained by the results could potentially benefit companies in the food industry. In the gluten-free cookie market, many companies will conduct tests to determine which cookie recipes are more palatable not only in terms of taste, but also in terms of moisture, chewiness and softness. This information could potentially help food companies decide which recipes to produce and sell, which may increase their chances of higher profits and sales. Improvements: Several improvements can be made in order to make this experiment more accurate and attain significant results: Firstly, one possible error in the experiment could be the inconsistency from cookie to cookie. Since all the cookies could not fit on one sheet at one time, each batch of cookies were cooked at a different time, resulting in cookies of differing doneness. In order to eliminate this error, we would need to use a larger oven with larger baking sheets. Another possible source of error comes from the temperatures of each sample. As the cookies made by the food lab coordinator were done significantly ahead of time before the next batch was made, during the test panel, some of the cookies were still warm and the chocolate chips partially melted. The panellists may have taken note of that either consciously or subconsciously and may have created a bias in the results. One issue in trying to reduce confounding factors in this experiment was to make the two batches of cookies uniform size in order to eliminate possible biases. However, it was difficult to make them exactly the same size. The problem of having cookies of varying size would mean that the cookies were likely to be different in doneness. In addition to varying doneness, another bias may stem from the fact that a panellist may associate a larger cookie with one that is more preferable. One way to ensure more identical sized cookies would be to use cookie cutters and cut sizes of identical thickness.
In order to increase the chance of significant results, if we were to repeat the experiment again, a greater number of panellists would be required. By increasing sample size, we are eliminating random error and increasing the chance of attaining significant results Our group also believes that the addition of chocolate chips within the cookies may distract panellists from purely analyzing the texture of these cookies. In order to focus on the purpose of the experiment (which is to analyze the texture of the gluten free batter), eliminating the chocolate chips may allow panellists to solely focus on the texture of the batter, instead of the chocolate chips. This may increase the accuracy of the results. Conclusion: This project covers the comparison of two recipes of gluten free soft oat chocolate chip cookies. After baking each batch, we conducted a taste panel with 14 panellists in attempt to determine the differences between the two. Our panel results found that the majority of testers found that the cookies made by our team were moister and softer but less chewy. Overall, the majority of testers also preferred our team’s cookies. However, when we use a test of significance, we found that our results were not significant. This means that, we would need a higher number of panellists to reach a concrete conclusion. When it comes to the challenge of gluten-free baking, the most difficult aspect is to emulate texture. The information gained from experiments like these can be used by chefs and dieticians to help those with celiac disease, whom have to overcome the challenges of avoiding wheat products.
