FORMULATION, ANALYSES AND ACCEPTABILITY OF HOG PLUM FLAVORED CUBES

The rising demand for natural and innovative food products has led researchers to explore alternative sourcesof flavors and nutrients.To help address food wastage and poverty, this study developed hog plum flavored cubes using beef, chicken, and pork.This also aimed to: formulate and evaluate the sensory qualities of the cubes, such as appearance, aroma, taste, and texture; determine consumer acceptability; assess differences in sensory attributes; and evaluate the shelf life at room and chilled temperatures.The best-performing variant underwent microbial and proximate analyses.The experimental-developmental method of research, using a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was used.This study included three replications, ten semi-trained panelists, and 100 consumer respondents.A 9-Point Hedonic Scale was used for evaluation, and data were analyzed using mean and ANOVA.Results showed that Treatment A (beef) received the highest ratings across sensory attributes, described as extremely appealing, pleasant, savory, and fine.Treatment B (chicken) followed with very favorable ratings, and Treatment C (pork) with good ratings.In consumer acceptability, both Treatments A (beef) and Treatment B (chicken) were liked extremely in appearance, while Treatment C (pork) was liked very much.Aroma received similar ratings across all treatments, indicating no significant differences.Taste in Treatment A (beef) was rated liked extremely, while Treatment B (chicken), and Treatment C (pork) were rated liked very much.Texture was consistently rated liked extremely, with beef as the overall preferred variant.While no significant differences were observed in appearance, aroma, and texture among treatments, taste showed a notable preference for beef cubes in sensory evaluation.General acceptability favored Treatment A (beef) in all sensory qualities.Finally, the beef variant underwent shelf-life testing, microbial, and proximate analysis, confirming its potential for extended use and nutritional value Results showed that hog plum flavored cubes stored for 30 days at both room temperature (in a dry, well-ventilated, sun-protected, and normally lit area) and at refrigerated conditions (32F-40F) exhibited no physical changes, indicating that nutrients remained intact.Microbial analysis revealed an Aerobic Plate Count of 40 CFU/g, with no detection of Total and Fecal Coliforms or E. coli at 10, and Salmonella was absent in 25g, all within BFAD standards.Yeast and mold counts were 8 CFU/g and 4 CFU/g, respectively.Proximate analysis of a 425g sample showed: fat (6.73g), carbohydrates (6.58g), moisture (11.79g), fiber (12.23g), protein (12.52g), ash (2.48g), and calories (582 kcal).

Publication Details

Journal
IARJSET
Published
2025-05-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17148/iarjset.2025.125323
Primary Topic
Food composition and properties
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

FORMULATION, ANALYSES AND ACCEPTABILITY OF HOG PLUM FLAVORED CUBES

IARJSET
Food composition and properties
article

FORMULATION, ANALYSES AND ACCEPTABILITY OF HOG PLUM FLAVORED CUBES

article en

Abstract

The rising demand for natural and innovative food products has led researchers to explore alternative sourcesof flavors and nutrients.To help address food wastage and poverty, this study developed hog plum flavored cubes using beef, chicken, and pork.This also aimed to: formulate and evaluate the sensory qualities of the cubes, such as appearance, aroma, taste, and texture; determine consumer acceptability; assess differences in sensory attributes; and evaluate the shelf life at room and chilled temperatures.The best-performing variant underwent microbial and proximate analyses.The experimental-developmental method of research, using a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was used.This study included three replications, ten semi-trained panelists, and 100 consumer respondents.A 9-Point Hedonic Scale was used for evaluation, and data were analyzed using mean and ANOVA.Results showed that Treatment A (beef) received the highest ratings across sensory attributes, described as extremely appealing, pleasant, savory, and fine.Treatment B (chicken) followed with very favorable ratings, and Treatment C (pork) with good ratings.In consumer acceptability, both Treatments A (beef) and Treatment B (chicken) were liked extremely in appearance, while Treatment C (pork) was liked very much.Aroma received similar ratings across all treatments, indicating no significant differences.Taste in Treatment A (beef) was rated liked extremely, while Treatment B (chicken), and Treatment C (pork) were rated liked very much.Texture was consistently rated liked extremely, with beef as the overall preferred variant.While no significant differences were observed in appearance, aroma, and texture among treatments, taste showed a notable preference for beef cubes in sensory evaluation.General acceptability favored Treatment A (beef) in all sensory qualities.Finally, the beef variant underwent shelf-life testing, microbial, and proximate analysis, confirming its potential for extended use and nutritional value Results showed that hog plum flavored cubes stored for 30 days at both room temperature (in a dry, well-ventilated, sun-protected, and normally lit area) and at refrigerated conditions (32F-40F) exhibited no physical changes, indicating that nutrients remained intact.Microbial analysis revealed an Aerobic Plate Count of 40 CFU/g, with no detection of Total and Fecal Coliforms or E. coli at 10, and Salmonella was absent in 25g, all within BFAD standards.Yeast and mold counts were 8 CFU/g and 4 CFU/g, respectively.Proximate analysis of a 425g sample showed: fat (6.73g), carbohydrates (6.58g), moisture (11.79g), fiber (12.23g), protein (12.52g), ash (2.48g), and calories (582 kcal).

IARJSETVol. 12(5)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Food composition and properties
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.