ACCEPTABILITY OF GIANT SWAMP TARO (Cyrtosperma merkusii) FLOUR IN THE PRODUCTION

OF PANCAKES

Research Proposal

Submitted to

ROMAR B. ANTONIO

Subject Instructor

In Partial Fulfilment

Of the Requirements for the Subject

Educ 21b (Research 1)

JUZZEL MARIE P. DE GUZMAN

REINA MAY R. SECULLES

PRINCESS FAITH KILESTE

LEA A. APOSTOL

2023
 Republic of the Philippines

QUIRINO STATE UNIVERSITY

Diffun, Quirino

APPROVAL SHEET

This research attached hereto titled “ACCEPTABILITY OF GIANT SWAMP TARO (Cyrtosmerma mirkussi)

FLOUR IN THE PRODUCTION OF PANCAKES” prepared and submitted by JUZZEL MARIE P. DE

GUZMAN, REINA MAY R. SECULLES, PRINCESS FAITH R. KILESTE, LEA A. APOSTOL in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood

Education is hereby recommended for acceptance and approval.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ROMAR B. ANTONIO, MA
Research Instructor
______________________
Date Signed

MARY GLO M. BONILLA, MAIE Maricris V. Nanglihan, PhD.

Research Adviser Panel Member

______________________ ______________________
Date Signed Date Signed

Approved and accepted as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education.

MARY GLO M. BONILLA, MAIE

BTLED, Program Chair

___________________
Date Signed
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We, the authors will be eternally grateful to the Almighty God, the source of wisdom,

direction, and enlightenment, for giving us the fortitude, strength, and good health needed to

complete this work.

From our sincere hearts, we, the authors desire to express our profound gratitude and

sincere appreciation to the following persons for their assistance in the preparation and

completion of this work.

Ms. Mary Glo M. Bonilla, MAIE, BTLED Program Chair, our research adviser for her

technical supervision and intelligent suggestions for the enhancement and improvement of this

study.

Mr. Romar B. Antonio, MA. our subject instructor for his patience, motivation,

enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped us in all the time of research and

writing of this thesis.

Heartfelt appreciation is given to our dearest parents for their understanding, patience,

and moral support throughout the study. We wish also to extend our heartfelt appreciation for

their endless support, emotionally, spiritually and financially.

And lastly, special thanks to all our friends and classmates who have helped us in many

ways in conducting this research.

The Authors
 DEDICATION

Believe you can and you’re halfway there. It will be worth it in the end. This humble effort is

dedicated to our parents and family who unselfishly provided us with financial and moral support

while we pursued our course, as well as to our beloved friends who provided

guidance whenever we encountered a problem. To our Almighty God,

the great provider, for the blessings and strengths

given to the writers. Above all, you

are an inspiration to us.

The Researchers
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE

APPROVAL SHEET

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN

DEDICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Statement of the Problem

Objectives of the Study

Null Hypothesis

Importance of the Study

Scope and delimitation of the study

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Paradigm

Definition of Terms

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature

Related Studies
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Research Environment

Participant and Description of the Respondents

Sample and Sampling Procedure

Research Instrument

Data Gathering Procedure

Statistical Tool Used

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the Respondents

Mean

T-test and ANOVA

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

Conclusion

Recommendation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Certification

Appendix B. Questionnaire

Appendix C. Curriculum Vitae

Appendix D. Documentation
 LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of the Respondents Profile (n = 40)

Table 2: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii)
Flour in the Production of Pancake in terms of its Quality Factor
Table 3: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii)
Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by sex

Table 4: t-test of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii) Flour in the
Production of Pancake when grouped by sex

Table 5.1.: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 1 when grouped by Age

Table 5.2: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 2 when grouped by Age

Table 5.3: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 3 when grouped by Age

Table 5.4: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 4 when grouped by Age

Table 5.5: Summary of the sensorial evaluation of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii)
Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by Age

Table 6: ANOVA on the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii) Flour in
the Production of Pancake when grouped by age
Table 6.1.: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 1 when grouped by Year Level

Table 6.2: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 2 when grouped by Year Level

Table 6.3: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 3 when grouped by Year Level

Table 6.4: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 4 when grouped by Year Level

Table 6.5: Summary of the sensorial evaluation of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii)
Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by Year Level

Table 7: ANOVA on the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii) Flour in
the Production of Pancake when grouped by year level
 ABSTRACT

JUZZEL MARIE P. DE GUZMAN, REINA MAY SECULLES, PRINCESS FAITH R.

KILESTE AND LEA A. APOSTOL. QUIRINO STATE UNIVERSITY- BTLED, DIFFUN,

QUIRINO, MARCH 2023. “ACCEPTABILITY OF GIANT SWAMP TARO

(CYRTOSPERMA MERKUSSI) FLOUR IN THE PRODUCTION OF PANCAKES”

This experimental research was conducted to determine the acceptability of giant swamp

taro flour in the production of pancakes using different proportions in making pancakes in terms

of general appearance, aroma, taste, and texture. Four treatments were formulated and used in the

study.
 The respondents of the study were the randomly selected BTLE students. The respondents

evaluated the finished products using a research-made questionnaire checklist based on 4- point

Hedonic scale. The statistical used were Frequency counts and percentages, Mean, T- test and

the F- test or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the respondent’s evaluation of the food

product in terms of appearance, aroma, taste, and texture.

The result of the study showed that there is an equal frequency distribution for the

classification and most of the respondents are female. The result of the sensory evaluation ratings

for treatment 1 has a grand mean of 2.75 which has the least grand mean and described as

Acceptable, Treatment 2 has a grand mean of 3. 02 which is also described as Acceptable and

lastly Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 has a grand mean of 3.59 and 3.80, respectively. Both are

described as Highly Acceptable. Among the total number of respondents Treatment 3 and

Treatment 4 of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkussi) flour in the production of pancake are

highly acceptable, however, treatment 4 has the largest grand mean among the four treatments.

The result of the study led to the conclusion that there were significant differences in the

level of the sensory evaluation of the four treatments as to appearance, aroma, taste, and texture

as well as general sensory evaluation; Hence, the null hypothesis which states that there is no

significant difference in the level of acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in the production of

pancakes when respondents are grouped by profile. Based on the foregoing finding, the

researchers recommend the following: further studies may be conducted to evaluate the

acceptability and nutritive content of the giant swamp taro pancake, there should be an intensive

study about the shelf life of giant swamp taro pancake; and cost of return analysis should be

conducted.
Key Words: Sensory, Evaluation, Giant Swamp Taro, Flour, Pancakes

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

The Philippines’ native plant, Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma merkussi) has dozens of

varieties thriving on most of the three tropical islands in the Pacific (Hopkins, 2012). A single-

substance crop that grows well within swampy areas. It might be placed in the ground and field

and preserved for extended periods, up to 30 years or more (Manner, 2011)

 Giant Swamp Taro is not considered to be a very valuable food in the Philippines. It is

only consumed when there is nothing else left to eat otherwise, it is ignored. Because it is not

consumed as food, many Giant Swamp Taro are dying in Anda, Bohol, for instance. In Iloilo,

giant swamp taro is not given much value as food. (Morano, 2009).

On the other hand, Palawan Province was indeed named after the plant Cyrtosperma

merkussi as “Palauan” in tagalog, it has been a unique plant in the Philippines. It grows in the

boggy parts of the Luzon Forest, particularly in Quezon to Bicol. Bicolanos and Ilocanos called

it “galyang” and in which they treat it as a root crop and cultivate it for its starchy tuber. They

prepare it probably with gata similar to how they eat taro or gabi (Colocasia esculenta) or make

it as “nilupak” with butter, sugar, and shredded coconut (Gozon,2010).

In terms of nutritional content, giant swamp taro corms are superior to potatoes since they

have a higher concentration of proteins, calcium, and phosphorus, especially Fiber, potassium,

iron, vitamin A, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, and vitamin C all abundant in giant swamp taro.

(Verma, 2016).

Hopkins (2012), stated that the main product of Giant Swamp Taro is the corm, which

can be roasted, boiled, baked, and fried. For consumption, starches are mashed, grated, and

mixed for eating. Giant Swamp Taro is transformed into flour or starch, which is then used to

make chips for snacks, infant food, and other culinary products. The Giant Swamp Taro can be a

substitute or supplementary food source that helps the Philippines achieve food security due to

its abundance not only in Agusan Del Sur but throughout the entire country (Balbieran, 2022).
 The word "pancake" was first used in the 15th century, and it became widely used in

19th-century America. (Kate, 2021). Pancakes are typically fried in oil or butter on a heated

griddle or frying pan and are arguably the oldest and most popular type of food consumed in

prehistoric communities (Martin, 2007).

According to Wolf (2017), pancakes serve up 12 percent of the iodine and riboflavin you

need each day as well, and you'll take in smaller quantities of vitamin C, thiamin, vitamin B-6,

niacin, vitamin B-12, magnesium, zinc, copper and iron.

Ali and Nail (2012) found that it is crucial to reiterate that recent trends in people

working long hours and having less time to prepare meals have led to increases in the

consumption of processed foods like the giant swamp taro products mentioned earlier. This is

because food is an integral part of a people's culture, and changes in cultural practices regarding

food preparation and consumption patterns can easily alter research findings. The purpose of this

study was to assess the impact of replacing wheat flour with giant swamp taro flour on specific

weaning food formula features.

Objectives of the study

This study was designed to determine the acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in the

production of pancakes. Specifically, it aims to:

1. Determine the profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Sex
 1.2 Age

1.3 Year Level

2. Find out the level of acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in the production of pancakes

in terms of;

2.1 Appearance

2.2 Aroma

2.3 Taste

2.4 Texture

3. Verify if there is a significant difference in the level of acceptability of giant swamp taro

flour in the production of pancakes when respondents are grouped by profile.

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in the level of acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in

the production of pancakes when respondents are grouped by profile.

Significance of the study

The researchers conducted the study on the acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in the

production of pancake, and hopes that the result of the study will benefit the following:

Consumers
 This product is healthy because it is from natural ingredients. Since its natural, people

will patronize the product.

Entrepreneurs

They are allowed to produce the product and engage in entrepreneurial activity which

will contribute to their economic condition and their living in general.

Homemakers

The product may help parents prepare food for their children which are nutritious and

affordable and provide health benefits. The product may give them the choice of food in a

healthier diet and budget affordable to them.

The locale/the community

The locale/community will benefit from the product proposal as it promotes the usage of

an alternative source of flour which is the taro plant hence giving them more options for

choosing a product.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study focused on determining the level of acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro Flour

in the Production of pancakes as alternative flour in making a pancake. It also focused on

sensory evaluation as appearance, aroma, taste, and texture. The development process included

the preparation of ingredients and optimization of the recipe for making giant swamp taro flour
in the production of pancakes. Respondents were randomly taken from the BTLED students of

Quirino State University- Diffun Campus. The 40 respondents consisted of 10 first Year, 10

second Year, 10 third Year, and 10 fourth Year students from the selected respondents of

BTLED students of Quirino State University- Diffun Campus.

Conceptual Framework

This study adopted the Input-Process-Output model. It is a tool that gauged the

effectiveness of the involved personnel and institution in the performance of the tasks to attain

the desired output. Hence, the deliberate and systematic process used in this study is shown

below.
 INPUT OUTPUT

A. Tools and
Equipment:
 Rubber Spatula
 Colander
 Plates
 Utility Tray
 Mixing Bowl PROCESS
 Measuring Cup Giant Swamp
 Measuring Spoon Acceptability of taro flour in the production
 Spatula of pancakes. Taro Pancake
 Non-Stick pan
B. Ingredients 1. Purchasing
 Taro Flour 2. Peeling and Chopping
 Eggs
3. Drying using oven
 Milk EVALUATION
 Oil 4. Powdering
 Butter 5. Mixing ingredients
 Sugar
 Salt 6. Frying
7. Plating

Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual model illustrated shows the different stages of the processes involved to

answer the statement of the problem.

The input stage consisted of the Tools, equipment, and ingredients needed during the

conduct of the study.

The second block is composed of the proposed process for preparing giant swamp taro

flour in the production of pancakes. The process plays a significant role in the conduct of the
study. Different strategies were considered to come up with the optimized process for preparing

giant swamp taro flour in the production of pancakes.

The third block consisted of the developed pancake made of the giant swamp taro flour,

followed by the sensory evaluation of the food product.

In all the sequences, the evaluation was given much attention to finding out the

acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in the production of pancakes.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined to help readers acquire a better understanding of the

terms used in the study. It is defined based on its functional use in this study.

Acceptability: the quality of being accepted.

Appearance: the presentation of the pancake regarding its color, size, and shape.

Aroma: the scent of giant swamp taro pancake.

 Pancake: a flat cake, often thin, and round, prepared from the giant swamp taro powder

which also contains eggs, milk, and butter, cooked on a hot surface such as a griddle or

frying pan with often oil or butter.

Flour: These are starchy materials that are milled or ground into powder and are also the

second ingredient in the enormous swamp taro pancake.

Root crops: a crop grown for its enlarged roots, also namely as giant swamp taro.

Sensory: refers to the sensation transmitted or perceived by the senses to determine the

appearance /color, taste, and texture of the giant swamp taro pancake.

Taste: This refers to the sensation of the flavor of the pancake which is perceived in the

mouth and throat in contact with a substance.

Hedonic Scale: it is a scale that indicates the extent of the respondent’s overall liking or

disliking of the pancake product that they will taste.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

The chapter contains the related literature and studies that are related to the present study

which helps in the interpretation of the data gathered.

Related Literature
 People began using the word “pancake” during the 15th century, and the word became

standard in 19th-century America In ancient Greece and Rome, pancakes were made from wheat

flour, olive oil, honey, and curdled milk (Kate, 2021).

They are incredibly easy to make as the basic ingredients. They are usually served in

stacks or flat with syrup drizzled on top or honey, sugar, cream, and chocolate and they are often

eaten for breakfast or dessert. (Marshall, 2021). Pancake has gained symbolic currency in diverse

societies as a comfort food, a portable victual for travelers, a celebratory dish, and a breakfast

meal (Albala, 2008).  In the U.S., Southerners eat the most pancakes, accounting for 32.5% of

our pancake consumption. You may be surprised to find that pancakes exist all over the world.

Each culture seems to have a unique take on them. People eat them for breakfast, lunch,

and dinner all over the globe. Some examples of this transcultural food include crepes, potato

latkes, Irish boxty, Russian blini, Welsh crampog, Indian poori, Hungarian palacsinta, and Dutch

pannenkoeken (Kate, 2021).

There are numerous advantages to eating pancakes. 230 calories, 6 grams of protein, 30

grams of carbs, and 10 grams of fat, including 2 grams of saturated fat, are present in a 100-gram

serving of plain pancakes, or roughly 1 1/2 pancakes that are 6 inches in diameter. Adding

mashed, grated, or chopped fruits or vegetables to your pancake butter adds vitamins and

minerals as well as flavour. (Riis, 2016).Since pancakes usually do not provide any fiber, you'll

consume 90 grams of carbohydrate and 90 carbs when you indulge in this meal. Pancakes will

boost your carbohydrate intake for the day. Your body uses carbohydrates as a primary source of

fuel, so this nutrient is important (Frey, 2020).

 Giant swamp or in English or “Gallan”, is a large edible taro variety known as a corm, a

tuber. It expands and can become exceedingly muddy in marshes large with broad, glossy leaves.

(Jansen T. et al., 2011). The giant swamp taro (Cyrtosperma merkussi) is a native plant of the

Philippines that has dozens of varieties thriving on most of the tropical islands in the Pacific.

Giant swamp taro is grown and harvested in small patches for its underground tubers, called

corms. Swamp taro corms are prepared in several ways, from roasting to grating to baking the

corm whole. The corm should be eaten or preserved within two days of harvesting, and properly

managed gardens can produce them year-round (Nierenberg, 2012).

Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma merkussi) is a highly productive but not fully exploited

plant native to Indonesia’s North Sulawesi region (Sjogersten, 2019). Since giant swamp taro is

not now being farmed as an agricultural crop and yet it is not a staple food. The localization and

its growth process are lacking. The plant has a lot of potential because small-scale farmers can

cultivate it even in climate change-affected areas, and this may a future proof of their livelihoods

and food production in the face of tougher weather and climates by creating such an innovative

product (Sjogersten, 2019).

Over three hundred million people around the world eat the giant swamp taro as a staple

diet. Similar to our potato, the corm, which is a swollen stem, is peeled, boiled, and consumed as

a significant source of carbohydrates. The enormous taro stems and leaves are also consumed as

a vegetable that is full of vitamins (The Living RainForest, 2006). Fiber, calcium, potassium,

iron, vitamin A, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, and vitamin C are all abundant in giant swamp taro. In

terms of nutritional content, taro corms are superior to potatoes since they have a higher

concentration of proteins, calcium, and phosphorus. Giant Swamp Taro corms have twice as
much vitamin B as a potato and are comparable to cabbage in terms of vitamin B concentration.

Additionally, giant swamp taro has higher levels of vitamin B-complex than whole milk. The

main bulk starch in corms is found in extremely fine grains, making them easily digested

(Verma, 2016).
Related Studies

Morano, (2009) conducted a study titled “Acceptability of Value-Added Products from

Giant Swamp Taro (Cystosperma chamissonis) Corm”, he found out that, Giant Swamp Taro

Espasol can be prepared using the taro flour. This study ventured to produce T1- Taro Espasol

with Young Buko, and T2- Taro Espasol with Peanuts; to determine its acceptability; and to

promote the product to the rural community. It was found out that T2 or Giant Swamp Taro with

peanuts ranked first in four sensory attributes; cohesiveness (tie with T0) - Crumbly, Odor - Very

Pleasant, Taste - Moderately Palatable, and in General Acceptability-Very Much Acceptable. T2

ranked second in texture-Less Soft and third in Appearance - Very Attractive. On the other hand,

T1 or Giant Swamp Taro with Young Buko got the highest in Appearance-Very Attractive,

cohesiveness (tie with T2)- Crumbly, second in taste Moderately Palatable, and in ‘general

Acceptability- Very Much Acceptable and third in Texture and Mouthfeel- less soft, and odor -

Very Pleasant. Meanwhile, T0 ranked first in texture and mouthfeel - less soft, second in

appearance - Very Attractive, Odor - Very Pleasant and third in Cohesiveness - Crumbly, Taste -

Moderately Palatable, and General Acceptability - Very Much Acceptable. It can be concluded

that the three treatments of Giant Swamp Taro Espasol are generally acceptable.

Garnce (2018), conducted a study entitled, “Sensory Characteristic and Acceptability of

Taro (Colocasia esculanta) Powder as Polvoron”, Treatment 0(use of all-purpose flour) got the

lowest mean evaluations sensory evaluation accourding to tase, aroma, texture and color.

Treatment 2 (use of 75% taro flour) got the second lowest mean evaluations sensory evaluation

according to taste, aroma, texture and color. Treatment 1 (use of 100% taro flour) Treatment 3

(use of 50% taro flour) got mean eavaluation that fall under the description of “like very much.
In terms of Return on Investment, all registered positive ROI’s, however Trearment 1 (use of

100% taro flour) got the highest with 165.95%, followed by Treatment 2(use of 75% taro flour)

with ROI’s of 138.09%, Treatment 0(use of 100% all-purpose flour) got the third highest ROI’s

of 119.29%, and the Treatment 3 (use of 50% taro flour) got the lowest ROI’s of 102.70%. All

treatment exceeded the cost of production.

Lamag (2018) in her research study entitled, “Acceptability of Cassava flour and

Malunggay Leaves Pandesal in Varying Amount of Flour at Quirino State University”, reveals

that this study of Cassavalunggay Pandesal was conducted to develop pandesal out of cassava

flour and malunggay leaves. It was found out that Cassava and malunggay are health beneficial

that’s why it is developed into a product as Cassavalunggay pandesal which is good to serve

during the snach because it contains healthful ingredients. It was conducted that: 1.0 Cassava

flour and malunggay leaves are potential to be utilized as alternative source in making cheaper

but nutritious pandesal. 2.) Cassava and malunggay leaves are very essential to the body because

of its nutritive content and its health benefits. 3.) Traetment 1 got the highest overall

acceptability mean evaluation. 4.) All the treatments used have the potential of being

commercialized by business entrepreneurs.

Pahila et al., (2013) from the study entitled, “Flour substitution and nutrient fortification

of butter cookies with underutilized agricultural products”. A fortified cookie from dehydrated

swamp taro (Cyrtosperma merkusii) combined with all-purpose enriched wheat flour was

developed. The study was performed in a Randomized Complete Block Design with three

treatments: unfortified swamp taro (ST) cookie, ST cookie with dehydrated moringa (Moringa
oleifera) leaves, ST cookie with dehydrated moringa leaves and squash (Cucurbita moschata).

The moisture, protein, crude fiber, and soluble carbohydrate contents of the cookies with

fortifications did not significantly differ from the unfortified cookies (p > 0.05), but the fat, total

mineral content and the vitamin A content of the fortified cookies were significantly higher than

the unfortified cookies (p < 0.05). The cookies developed using dehydrated swamp taro with

moringa and squash can be described as nutritious in terms of protein content (11%) with high

calorie value from crude fat (16.5–18%) and high soluble carbohydrate (61.5–63.2%). Based on

the proximate composition of the cookies, 15 cookies at 13.3 g/cookie could provide about 22 g

protein equivalent to one third of the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein, 34–36

g fat and 122-126 g carbohydrate equivalent to one half of the RDA for fat and carbohydrate and

>100% of the vitamin A daily requirement in accordance with the estimated 2000-calorie RDA

of a 50-kg normal adult. After sensory evaluation using the 9-point hedonic scale, panellists

described the fortified cookies to be highly acceptable in terms of appearance and moderately

acceptable in terms of texture and flavour.

Balgona and Tambogon, (2012) titled “The Utilization of Tiyesa (Pouteria lucuma) as main

ingredient in Pancakes”. This study was designed to determine the feasibility of tiyesa (Pouteria

lucuma) fruit as pancake ingredient. The formulation made of 25% tiyesa (Pouteria lucuma) +

75% flour was recommended for making pancakes. The product was rated the most preferred in

terms of taste, appearance and acceptability.

CHAPTER III
 METHODS AND PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY

This chapter presents the methodology and procedures followed in conducting the research

study. Chapter sections include and discussed the materials, product procedure, research design,

research environment, subject of the study, and data gathering procedures.

Developmental Procedure

1. Flow chart for the developmental procedure

Flow Chart for Taro Flour

Purchasing

Peeling and Chopping

Oven drying

Powdering

Mixing of ingredients

Frying

Plating

1. Ingredients
There are three products with different measurements namely.

Treatment 1

Item no. Quantity Description

1 1 cup Commercial Flour
1 Medium Eggs
1 1/2 cup Milk
1 1/8 cup Oil
1 ½ tbsp. Unsalted Butter
2 ½ cup Sugar

Treatment 2

Item no. Quantity Description

1 ¾ cup Commercial Flour
1 ¼ cup Giant swamp taro flour
1 Medium Eggs
1 1/2 cup Milk
1 1/8 cup Oil
1 ½ tbsp. Unsalted Butter
2 ½ cup Sugar

Treatment 3

Item no. Quantity Description

1 ½ cup Giant swamp taro flour
1 ½ cup Commercial Flour
1 Medium Eggs
1 1/2 cup Milk
1 1/8 cup Oil
1 ½ tbsp. Unsalted Butter
2 ½ cup Sugar
Treatment 4

Item no. Quantity Description

1 1 cup Giant swamp taro flour
1 Medium Eggs
1 1/2 cup Milk
1 1/8 cup Oil
1 ½ tbsp. Unsalted Butter
2 ½ cup Sugar
 2. Tools and Equipment

Description
Preparatory Tools Measuring Tools Cooking Equipment
Tools
a. Rubber Spatula a. Measuring Cup a. Spatula a.Non-
Stick
pan
b. Colander b. Measuring Spoon
c. Plates
d. Utility Tray
e. Mixing Bowl
f. Whisk

PROCEDURE

PROCEDURE DOCUMENTATION
1. Purchasing

2. Peeling and Chopping

3. Drying using Oven

4. Powdering

5. Mixing of ingredients
6. Frying

7. Plating

Research Design

The finished food products were subject to sensory evaluation. Fourthy (40) evaluators

were selected using random sampling from the College of Teacher Education (CTE), particularly

at the Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education Program of Quirino State University

Diffun Campus, Diffun, Quirino. Among those composed of ten (10) students per year level. The

evaluators were all in good health condition. Orientation with the evaluators was conducted

before evaluation. The giant swamp taro pancake was served on the table. Each respondents was

asked to taste the sample of each tratments. The data for each treatment were collected and

subjected to statistical analysis.

Research Environment

This study was conducted at the College of Teacher Education (CTE), particularly at the

Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education Program of Quirino State University Diffun

Campus, Diffun, Quirino. This study was conducted in the school year 2022-2023.
Research Instrument

The instrument used was a research-made questionnaire checklist to gather the needed data

for the respondent’s profile. The questionnaire is a setup and conceptualizes to find out the

evaluation of the 30 random respondents and the target is the 3rd year and 4th year BTLED

students of Quirino State University on the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro Flour in the

Production of Pancake. The instrument has two parts. The first is the checklist design to gather

information about the personal background of the respondents which includes age to determine

which category they are in. The second part is the checklist designed to gather information about

the acceptability of taro flour in the production of pancakes.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers will collect the data using a survey questionnaire. This survey is composed

of questions that are related to the respondents regarding the consumer’s acceptability of giant

swamp taro flour in the production of pancake each category ranges from scale 4-1, wherein 4 as

highly acceptable, 3 as acceptable, 2 as slightly acceptable while 1 as Not Acceptable. The

questionnaires were collected and data obtained were tabulated on tables and interpreted using

the frequency counts and mean percentage.

Range Quantitative Value Quantitative Description

3.25- 4.00 4 Highly Accepted

2.50- 3.24 3 Acceptable

1.75- 2.49 2 Slightly Acceptable

1.0- 1.74 1 Not Acceptable

Statistical Tool Used

Data were tabulated and analyzed using the following statistical tools:

Frequency counts and percentages. These were used to determine the

distribution of the profile of the respondents as to age, name, sex and year level.

Mean. These were used to find out the level of acceptability of giant swamp taro

flour in the production of pancakes in terms of appearance, aroma, taste, and texture.

T-test. This was utilized to verify if there are significant differences on the

acceptability of Giant swamp taro flour in the production of pancake when they are

grouped by sex.

ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). This was utilized to verify if there are

significant differences on the acceptability of Giant swamp taro flour in the production of

pancake when they are grouped by age and year level.

 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of the Respondents Profile (n = 40)

Respondents Profile Frequency Percent (%)
Age
17-18 years old 6 15.0
19-20 years old 13 32.5
21-22 years old 21 52.5
Sex
Male 16 40.0
Female 24 60.0
Year Level
First Year 10 25.0
Second Year 10 25.0
Third Year 10 25.0
Fourth Year 10 25.0

Table 1 illustrates the distribution of the respondent’s profile. It shows the age, sex, and year

level of the respondents.

Based on the data presented under age of the respondents, out of 40 student-respondents, 6 or 15

percent of them are 17-18 years old, which has the least number, and 13 or 32.50 percent are 19-

20 years old. The majority of the respondents are from 21-22 years old comprising 21 or 52.50

percent.

In addition, the distribution revealed that most of the respondents are female which is 60 percent

or 24 out of 40 respondents, while males comprised 16 or 40 percent of the respondents.

Moreover, as shown in the table, there are equal number of respondents from first year to fourth

year. There were 10 respondents per year level.

Table 2: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma

Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake in terms of its Quality Factor
Grand
Quality Factor
Treatment Mean
Appearance Aroma Taste Texture
3.13 2.90 2.48 2.48 2.75
TREATMENT 1
A A SA SA A

2.85 3.13 3.15 2.93 3.02

TREATMENT 2
A A A A A

3.53 3.58 3.73 3.53 3.59

TREATMENT 3
HA HA HA HA HA

3.75 3.83 3.85 3.78 3.80

TREATMENT 4
HA HA HA HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 2 demonstrates the mean distribution of the acceptability of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma

merkusii) flour in the production of pancake in terms of its quality factor.

It can be noted that in terms of the Appearance and Aroma, Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 have a

mean description of Acceptable while Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 has a mean description of

Highly Acceptable. Moreover, in terms of the quality factor – Taste and Texture, Treatment 1

has a mean description of Slightly Acceptable, Treatment 2 has a mean description of Acceptable

and Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 have a mean description of Highly Acceptable.

The table further implied that Treatment 1 generated a grand mean of 2.75 which has the least

grand mean and described as Acceptable, Treatment 2 has a grand mean of 3.02 which is also
described as Acceptable and lastly Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 has a grand mean of 3.59 and

3.80, respectively. Both are described as Highly Acceptable.

The table showed that among the total number of respondents Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 of

giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake are highly

acceptable, however, Treatment 4 has the largest grand mean among the four treatments done.

Table 3: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma

Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by sex

Sex/Treatment
Quality
MALE FEMALE
Factors
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
3.00 2.75 3.50 3.81 3.21 2.92 3.54 3.71
Appearance
A A HA HA A A HA HA
2.75 3.19 3.56 3.75 3.00 3.08 3.58 3.88
Aroma
A A HA HA A A HA HA
2.69 3.13 3.75 3.94 2.33 3.17 3.71 3.79
Taste
A A HA HA SA A HA HA
2.44 3.06 3.63 3.94 2.50 2.83 3.46 3.67
Texture
SA A HA HA SA A HA HA
GRAND 2.72 3.03 3.61 3.86 2.76 3.00 3.57 3.76
MEAN A A HA HA A A HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 3 indicates the mean distribution of the acceptability of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma

merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by sex.

It is shown on the table that for male respondents, considering all of the quality factors given,

Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 have a mean description of Acceptable while Treatment 3 and

Treatment 4 have a mean description of Highly Acceptable. Hence, for male respondents, the

grand mean of Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 is 2.72 and 3.03, respectively, which are both
described as Acceptable. Whereas, Treatment 3 has a grand mean of 3.61 and Treatment 4 has a

grand mean of 3.86, which are both labeled as Highly Acceptable.

On the other hand, for female respondents, with respect to Treatment 1, the quality factors, Taste

and Texture, have a mean description of Slightly Acceptable while Appearance and Aroma have

both mean description of Acceptable. Moreover, for Treatment 2, all quality factors have a mean

description of Acceptable and for both Treatment 3 and Treatment 4, all quality factors have a

mean description of Highly Acceptable. Along these results, the grand mean of Treatment 1 and

Treatment 2 are 2.76 and 3.0 respectively, which are both Acceptable for female respondents. As

to the Treatment 3, it has a grand mean of 3.57 and Treatment 4 has a grand mean of 3.76, which

are both categorized as Highly Acceptable.

The table denoted that for both male and female respondents, Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 are

Acceptable and Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 are both Highly Acceptable. The table also shows

that Treatment 4 obtained the highest mean for both male and female respondents when grouped

by sex.
 Table 4: t-test of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii) Flour in

the Production of Pancake when grouped by sex

TREATMENT
Quality Factors Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
t-comp Sig t-comp Sig t-comp Sig t-comp Sig

Appearance -0.753 0.456 -0.615 0.543 -0.213 0.832 0.732 0.469

Aroma -0.765 0.449 0.362 0.720 -0.127 0.899 -1.007 0.320

Taste 1.359 0.182 -0.148 0.883 0.282 0.779 1.061 0.296

Texture -0.211 0.834 0.771 0.446 1.022 0.313 2.066 0.046*

OVERALL -0.172 0.864 0.122 0.904 0.269 0.789 1.040 0.305

* Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

Table 4 portrays the t-test of the acceptability of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour

in the production of pancake when grouped by sex.

It can be gleaned on the table that only the quality factor Texture under Treatment 4 generated a

p-value or level of significance lesser than the 0.05 level of significance. The texture of

Treatment 4 has a t-computed value of 2.066 and a significance of 0.046 which is interpreted as

significant. This implies further that there is a significant difference on the acceptability of giant

swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake in terms of its Texture

with regards to Treatment 4 only when grouped by sex. However, when the overall Treatment 4

is considered, it is not statistically significant, having a t-computed value of 1.040 and a p-value

of 0.305.

Nevertheless, on other quality factors in Treatment 4 and all quality factors across Treatment 1,

Treatment 2 and Treatment 3, it can be gleaned on the table that giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma

merkusii) flour in the production of pancake is not statistically significant. This means that there
is no significant difference on the Acceptability of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii)

flour in the production of pancake when grouped by sex.

The table further inferred that sex does not affect the acceptability of the Treatment 1, Treatment

2 and Treatment 3 of the giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of

pancake even in Treatment 4 except on its Texture.

Table 5.1.: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 1 when grouped by Age

TREATMENT 1

Age
Quality Factors
17-18 years old 19-20 years old 21-22 years old
3.50 3.08 3.05
Appearance
HA A A
3.50 2.69 2.86
Aroma
HA A A
3.00 2.69 2.19
Taste
A A SA
2.83 2.38 2.43
Texture
A SA SA
3.21 2.71 2.63
GRAND MEAN
A A A
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 5.1. reveals the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 1 when grouped by age.

It is shown on the table that for 17 to 18 years old respondents, the Appearance and Aroma have

a mean description of Highly Acceptable while the Taste and Texture are Acceptable. Hence, the

grand mean of Treatment 1 is 3.21 which is Acceptable to 17 to 18 years old respondents.

Also, for the 19 to 20 years old respondents, in terms of the Texture, Treatment 1 has a mean

description of Slightly Acceptable, while on the quality factors Appearance, Aroma and Taste

have a mean description of Acceptable. Thus, for the 19 to 20 years old respondents, Treatment 1

is described as Acceptable with a grand mean of 2.71.

Furthermore, for 21-22 years old respondents, Appearance and Aroma of Treatment 1 have a

mean description of Acceptable while the Taste and Texture are Slightly Acceptable. Thus, for
17 to 18 years old respondents, Treatment 1 has a grand mean of 2.63, which is described as

Acceptable.

Lastly, the table showed that in terms of age, Treatment 1 is Acceptable across all ages of the

respondents having a grand mean of 3.21 for 17 to 18 years old, 2.71 for 19 to 20 years old and

2.63 for 21-22 years old respondents.

Table 5.2: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 2 when grouped by Age

TREATMENT 2

Age
Quality Factors
17-18 years old 19-20 years old 21-22 years old
3.50 2.54 2.86
Appearance
HA A A
3.83 3.08 2.95
Aroma
HA A A
3.67 3.00 3.10
Taste
HA A A
3.67 2.69 2.86
Texture
HA A A
3.67 2.83 2.94
GRAND MEAN
HA A A
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 5.2. shows the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 2 when grouped by age.

It is illustrated on the table that for 17 to 18 years old respondents, all of the quality factors have

a mean description of Highly Acceptable. Additionally, for the 19 to 20 years old and 21 to 22

years old respondents, all of the given quality factors with regards to Treatment 2, all have a

mean description of Acceptable.

Thus, the table presented that in terms of age, Treatment 2 is Highly Acceptable for 17 to 18

years old respondents with a grand mean of 3.67 and Treatment 2 is Acceptable for 19 to 20

years old and 21 to 22 years old respondents with a grand mean of 2.83 and 2.94, respectively.
Table 5.3: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 3 when grouped by Age

TREATMENT 3

Age
Different Sensory
17-18 years old 19-20 years old 21-22 years old
3.67 3.38 3.57
Appearance
HA HA HA
3.83 3.38 3.62
Aroma
HA HA HA
3.67 3.69 3.76
Taste
HA HA HA
3.67 3.54 3.48
Texture
HA HA HA
3.71 3.50 3.61
GRAND MEAN
HA HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 5.3. presents the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 3 when grouped by age.

It is shown on the table that across all ages, all quality factors of Treatment 3 have a mean

description of Highly Acceptable. The result also shows that the grand mean of Treatment 3

when grouped by age are 3.71 for 17 to 18 years old, 3.50 for 19 to 20 years old and 3.61 for 21-

22 years old respondents which are all described as Highly Acceptable.

Thus, the table showed that Treatment 3 is Highly Acceptable for all sets of respondents when

grouped by Age.
Table 5.4: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 4 when grouped by Age

TREATMENT 4

Age
Different Sensory
17-18 years old 19-20 years old 21-22 years old
3.67 3.69 3.81
Appearance
HA HA HA
4.00 3.69 3.86
Aroma
HA HA HA
3.83 3.92 3.81
Taste
HA HA HA
3.83 3.85 3.71
Texture
HA HA HA
3.83 3.79 3.80
GRAND MEAN
HA HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 5.4. exhibits the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 4 when grouped by age.

The table illustrates that with regards to all of the quality factors of Treatment 4 have a mean

description of Highly Acceptable across all ages. It can also be noticed that the grand mean of

Treatment 4 when grouped by age are 3.83 for 17 to 18 years old, 3.79 for 19 to 20 years old and

3.80 for 21-22 years old respondents which are all described as Highly Acceptable.

Therefore, the table exhibited that Treatment 4 is Highly Acceptable for all sets of respondents

when grouped by Age.

Table 5.5: Summary of the sensorial evaluation of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by Age

Age
Treatment
17-18 years old 19-20 years old 21-22 years old

3.21 2.71 2.63

TREATMENT 1
A A A

3.67 2.83 2.94

TREATMENT 2
HA A A

3.71 3.50 3.61

TREATMENT 3
HA HA HA

3.83 3.79 3.80

TREATMENT 4
HA HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 5.5. shows the summary of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma

merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by age.

As presented in the table, Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 are Highly Acceptable across all ages

while Treatment 1 is Acceptable for all sets of respondents in terms of age. Moreover, Treatment

2 is also Acceptable for 19 to 20 years old and 21-22 years old respondents and described as

Highly Acceptable for 17 to 18 years old respondents.

The table also displayed that Treatment 4 obtained the highest mean for all sets of respondents

when grouped by age.

 Table 6: ANOVA on the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii)
Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by age

TREATMENT
Different Sensory Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
F-comp Sig F-comp Sig F-comp Sig F-comp Sig

Appearance 0.675 0.515 3.015 0.061 0.576 0.567 0.402 0.672

Aroma 1.386 0.263 2.539 0.093 1.904 0.163 1.505 0.235

Taste 3.335 0.047* 1.334 0.276 0.147 0.864 0.279 0.758

Texture 0.549 0.582 2.646 0.084 0.326 0.724 0.444 0.645

OVERALL 1.468 0.244 2.753 0.077 0.556 0.578 0.046 0.955

* Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

Table 6 displays the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Acceptability of giant

swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by age.

It can be noticed that all quality factors for Treatment 2, Treatment 3, and Treatment 4

generated a p-value higher than 0.05 level of significance which is interpreted as Not Significant.

This indicates further that there is no significant difference on the acceptability of giant swamp

taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by age in terms of

Treatment 2, Treatment 3, and Treatment 4. Thus, the results failed to reject the null

hypothesis in terms of Treatment 2, Treatment 3, and Treatment 4 when grouped by age.

However, it can be gleaned on the table that only the quality factor Taste under Treatment

1 generated a p-value or level of significance lesser than the 0.05 level of significance. The Taste

of Treatment 1 has a t-computed value of 3.335 and a p-value of 0.047 which is interpreted as

significant. This implies further that there is a significant difference on the acceptability of giant
swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake in terms of its Taste with

regards to Treatment 1 only when grouped by age. However, when the overall Treatment 1 is

considered, it is not statistically significant, having a t-computed value of 1.468 and a p-value of

0.244. Thus, the results also failed to reject the null hypothesis in terms of overall of

Treatment 1 when grouped by age.

Hence, the table above implies that age does not affect the acceptability of the Treatment

2, Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 of the giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the

production of pancake even in Treatment 1 as a whole except on its Taste.

Table 6.1.: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 1 when grouped by Year Level

TREATMENT 1

Year Level
Quality Factor
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year
3.40 3.00 2.80 3.30
Appearance
HA A A HA
3.30 2.50 2.60 3.20
Aroma
HA SA A A
3.10 2.40 2.10 2.30
Taste
A SA SA SA
2.80 2.40 2.30 2.40
Texture
A SA SA SA
GRAND 3.15 2.58 2.45 2.80
MEAN A A SA A
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 6.1. reveals the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 1 when grouped by year

level.
The table portrayed that for first year respondents, the Appearance and Aroma have a mean

description of Highly Acceptable while the Taste and Texture are Acceptable. Hence, the grand

mean of Treatment 1 is 3.15 which is Acceptable to first-year respondents.

For second year respondents, Aroma, Taste and Texture are described as Slightly Acceptable

whereas the Appearance of Treatment 1 is Acceptable for the group. Thus, for the second-year

respondents, Treatment 1 is described as Acceptable with a grand mean of 2.58.

On the other hand, for the third-year respondents, Appearance and Aroma have a mean

description of Acceptable while Taste and Texture have a mean description of Slightly

Acceptable. Consequently, for the group of third year respondents, Treatment 1 has a grand

mean of 2.34, which is described as Slightly Acceptable.

Furthermore, for the fourth-year respondents, Appearance of Treatment 1 is described as Highly

Acceptable, Aroma is described as Acceptable nevertheless the Taste and Texture of Treatment 1

are Slightly Acceptable for the group. As a result, Treatment 1 is described as Acceptable for the

fourth-year respondents with a grand mean of 2.80.

In conclusion, the table presented that in terms of year level, Treatment 1 is Acceptable for first-

year, second-year and fourth-year respondents but only Slightly Acceptable for third-year

respondents.
Table 6.2: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 2 when grouped by Year Level

TREATMENT 2

Year Level
Quality Factor
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year
3.50 2.20 2.60 3.10
Appearance
HA SA A A
3.80 2.80 2.80 3.10
Aroma
HA A A A
3.80 2.60 3.00 3.20
Taste
HA A A A
3.80 2.20 2.80 2.90
Texture
HA SA A A
GRAND 3.73 2.45 2.80 3.08
MEAN HA SA A A
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 6.2. demonstrates the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 2 when grouped by year

level.

The result showed that for first year respondents, all of the quality factors of Treatment 2 have a

mean description of Highly Acceptable. Moreover, for the third-year and fourth-year

respondents, all of the given quality factors with regards to Treatment 2, all have a mean

description of Acceptable. The table also presented that for second-year respondents, Aroma and

Taste of Treatment 2 are Acceptable while Appearance and Texture are Slightly Acceptable.

Hence, it can be gleaned on the table that Treatment 2 is Highly Acceptable for first-year

respondents with a grand mean of 3.73, Treatment 2 is Acceptable for third-year and fourth-year

respondents with a grand mean of 2.80 and 3.08, respectively and lastly, Treatment 2 is Slightly

Acceptable for second-year respondents with a grand mean of 2.45.

Table 6.3: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 3 when grouped by Year Level

TREATMENT 3

Year Level
Quality Factor
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year
3.80 3.00 3.50 3.80
Appearance
HA A HA HA
3.80 3.20 3.50 3.80
Aroma
HA A HA HA
3.90 3.50 3.50 4.00
Taste
HA HA HA HA
3.80 3.30 3.40 3.60
Texture
HA HA HA HA
GRAND 3.83 3.25 3.48 3.80
MEAN HA A HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 6.3. shows the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 3 when grouped by year

level.

It is illustrated on the table that for first-year, third-year and fourth-year respondents, all of the

quality factors have a mean description of Highly Acceptable. Whereas, for second-year

respondents, Appearance and Aroma of Treatment 3 are described as Acceptable but Taste and

Texture are described as Highly Acceptable.

Thus, the table displayed that in terms of year level, Treatment 3 is Acceptable for second-year

respondents with a grand mean of 3.25 but Treatment 3 is Highly Acceptable for first-year, third-

year and fourth-year respondents with a grand mean of 3.83, 3.48 and 3.80, respectively.
Table 6.4: Mean Distribution of the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake of Treatment 4 when grouped by Year Level

TREATMENT 4

Year Level
Quality Factor
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year
3.80 3.40 3.90 3.90
Appearance
HA HA HA HA
3.70 3.70 3.90 4.00
Aroma
HA HA HA HA
3.80 3.90 3.80 3.90
Taste
HA HA HA HA
3.80 3.80 3.80 3.70
Texture
HA HA HA HA
GRAND 3.78 3.70 3.85 3.88
MEAN HA HA HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 6.4. presents the mean distribution of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake of Treatment 4 when grouped by year

level.

It is shown on the table that across all year levels, all quality factors of Treatment 4 have a mean

description of Highly Acceptable. The result also shows that the grand mean of Treatment 4

when grouped by year level are 3.78 for first-year, 3.70 for second-year, 3.85 for third-year and

3.88 for fourth-year respondents which are all described as Highly Acceptable.

Thus, the table indicated that Treatment 4 is Highly Acceptable for all sets of respondents when

grouped by year level.

 Table 6.5: Summary of the sensorial evaluation of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma
Merkusii) Flour in the Production of Pancake when grouped by Year Level

Year Level
Treatment
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year
3.15 2.58 2.45 2.80
TREATMENT 1
A A SA A

3.73 2.45 2.80 3.08

TREATMENT 2
HA SA A A

3.83 3.25 3.48 3.80

TREATMENT 3
HA A HA HA

3.78 3.70 3.85 3.88

TREATMENT 4
HA HA HA HA
Legend: 3.26-4.00 Highly Acceptable (HA) 2.51-3.25 Acceptable (A)
1.76-2.50 Slightly Acceptable 1.00-1.75 Not Acceptable (NA)

Table 6.5. illustrates the summary of the sensorial evaluation of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma

merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by year level.

As shown in the table, Treatment 4 is Highly Acceptable across all year levels, Treatment 3 is

also Highly Acceptable for first-year, third-year and fourth-year respondents, while only

Acceptable for second-year respondents. In addition, Treatment 2 is Highly Acceptable as well

for first year, Acceptable for third-year and fourth-year but Slightly Acceptable for second-year

respondents. As to Treatment 1, it is Acceptable for first-year, second-year and fourth-year

respondents while only Slightly Acceptable for third-year respondents.

The table further implied that Treatment 3 obtained the highest mean for first-year respondents

whereas, Treatment 4 obtained the highest mean for the other three sets of respondents when

grouped by year level.

Table 7: ANOVA on the Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma Merkusii) Flour
in the Production of Pancake when grouped by year level
 TREATMENT
Quality Factor Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
F-comp Sig F-comp Sig F-comp Sig F-comp Sig

Appearance 1.046 0.384 6.690 *0.001 5.289 *0.004 3.517 *0.025

Aroma 1.734 0.177 3.380 *0.029 4.068 *0.014 1.588 0.209

Taste 3.355 0.029* 4.167 *0.012 4.220 *0.012 0.171 0.915

Texture 0.580 0.632 7.964 *<0.001 2.082 0.120 0.130 0.941

OVERALL 1.825 0.160 6.809 *0.001 6.204 *0.002 0.700 0.558

* Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance

Table 7 displays the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the Acceptability of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by year level.

It can be noticed that only the Taste of Treatment 1 is statistically significant which

generated a p-value or level of significance lesser than the 0.05 level of significance. The Taste

of Treatment 1 has a t-computed value of 3.355 and a p-value of 0.029 which is interpreted as

significant. This implies further that there is a significant difference on the acceptability of giant

swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake in terms of its Taste with

regards to Treatment 1 only when grouped by year level. However, when the overall Treatment 1

is considered, it is not statistically significant, having a t-computed value of 1.825 and a p-value

of 0.160. Hence, the results failed to reject the null hypothesis in terms of overall of

Treatment 1 when grouped by year level.

On the other hand, the result also showed that in Treatment 4, only the Appearance is

statistically significant which generated a p-value or level of significance lesser than the 0.05
level of significance. The Appearance of Treatment 4 has a t-computed value of 3.517 and a p-

value of 0.025 which is interpreted as significant. This means that there is a significant difference

on the acceptability of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of

pancake in terms of its Appearance with regards to Treatment 4 only when grouped by year

level. However, when the overall Treatment 4 is considered, it is not statistically significant,

having a t-computed value of 0.700 and a p-value of 0.558. And so, the results also failed to

reject the null hypothesis in terms of overall of Treatment 4 when grouped by year level.

However, on Treatment 2 and Treatment 3, it can be gleaned on the table that giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake has a p-value or level of significance

lesser than the 0.05 level of significance in all of the quality factors given. These implied that the

product is significant in all of the quality factors given.

Furthermore, Treatment 2 has a t-computed value of 6.809 and a p-value of 0.001 and

Treatment 3 has a t-computed value of 6.204 and a p-value of 0.002 which are both interpreted

as statistically significant. Therefore, the result rejects the null hypothesis in terms of overall

of Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 when grouped by year level which means that Treatment 2

and Treatment 3 have a significant difference on the acceptability of giant swamp taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake when grouped by year level.

The table above further implies that year level does not affect the acceptability of the

giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the production of pancake in Treatment 1 and 4

while on Treatment 2 and Treatment 3, year level does affect the acceptability of the product.
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

This study focused on the study of sensory evaluation of acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro

(cyrtosperma merkusii) flour in the Production of Pancakes. It was conducted in the year 2023 at

Quirino State University Main Campus were the subjects of this research.

This research had the following objectives: (1) determine the profile of the respondents in

terms of sex, age and year level. (2) find out the level of acceptability giant swamp taro flour in

the production of pancakes in terms of appearance, aroma, taste and texture. (verify) if there is a

significant difference in the level of acceptability of giant swamp taro flour in the production pf

pancakes when respondents are grouped by profile.

Data were gathered from the respondents through the use of questionnaire. The questionnaire

was composed of two parts, the first was the profile of the respondents and the second part was

the Hedonic scale rating. The respondents were asked to answer the survey questionnaire using a

4 point Hedonic scale. The statistics used to determine the significant differences in giant swamp

taro flour in the production of pancake as to their profile were the Frequency counts and

percentages, Mean, T- test and the F- test or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

 The result of the study showed that there is an equal frequency distribution for the

classification and most of the respondents are female. The result of the sensory evaluation rating

for treatment 1 has a grand mean of 2.75 which has the least grand mean and described as

Acceptable, Treatment 2 has a grand mean of 3.02 which is also described as Acceptable and

lastly Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 has a grand mean of 3.59 and 3.80, respectively. Both are

described as Highly Acceptable. Among the total number of respondents Treatment 3 and

Treatment 4 of giant swamp taro (cyrtosperma merkussi) flour in the production of pancake are

highly acceptable, however, treatment 4 has the largest grand mean among the four treatments.

There is no significant difference on the acceptability of giant swamp (cyrtosperma merkusii)

flour in the production of pancake in Treatment 1 and 4 while on Treatment 2 and Treatment 3,

year level does affect the acceptability of the product.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the summary, the following conclusions were derived:

1. There is an equal frequency distribution for the classification and most of the respondents

are female.

2. The evaluators described the giant swamp taro pancake in terms general appearance,

aroma, taste, and texture as “highly acceptable “.

3. The result of the study showed that treatment 4 had the highest ratings among all the

treatments with a grand mean of 3.59%.

A. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing finding, the researchers recommend the following:

 1. Further studies may be conducted to evaluate the acceptability and nutritive content of

the giant swamp taro pancake;

2. There should be an intensive study about the shelf life of giant swamp taro pancake; and

3. Cost of return analysis should be conducted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, A.O. and N. Nail, (2012). Usage of flour as trial to face gluten sensitivity. The New Egypt.
J. Medicine, 46(5 supplement): 15-22.

Albala K., (2008). Pancake: A Global History (illustrated). Reaktion Books, 2008

Albala (2008).The Potential of Pancake utilizing Promo Box.

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-rizal-system/business
research/chapter-1-and-chapter-3-of-reseacrch-entitled-the-potential-of-pancake
utilizing-promo-box/20523337

Balguma P., et al., (2012). THE UTILIZATION OF TIYESA (Pouteria lucuma) AS MAIN

Ingredient Pamcake. https://www.google.com/url?sa=r&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source

=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiF0J_-Ml)

Balbieran S., (2022). Giant swamp taro shows potential as supplemental food source – DOST
PCAARRD. http://www.pcaarrd.dost.gov.ph/home/portal/index.php/quick
information dispatch/3981-giant-swamp-taro-shows-potential-
as-supplemental food source-dost pcaarrd

Daquioag DJ. C.(2015). Organoleptic Quality and Consumer Acceptability of Meatballs Using
Taro (Colocasia Esculenta), Ube(Dioscorea Alata), Cassava (Manihot
Esculenta)
As Meat Binders and Extenders. Quirino State University.

Frey M., (2020). Pancake Nutrition Facts and Health Benefits https://www.verywellfit.com/malia
frey-3494683

Garnce I.J (2017). Sensory Characteristic and Acceptability of Taro (Colocasia esculanta)
Powder as Polvoron. Quirino State University

Hopkins, I. (2012). Giant swamp taro: Uptapped potential in the pacific. (Retrieved from :
blogs.worldwatch. org/…/giant-swamp-taro-untapped-potential-in-the-pac,
accessed : October 28, 2013).
Jansen T. , Tutua S. and Logan T. (2011). Grow more giant swamp taro. Live & Learn
Environmental Education with funding through AusAID’s International Climate
Change Adaptation Initiative – Community-based Adaptation Activity Grants

Kate's Kitchen (Gladstone). The History of Pancakes. https://www.kateskitchenkc.com/blog/the

history-of pancakes/#:~:text=People%20began%20using%20the
%20word,made%20with%2 buckwheat%20or%20cornmeal.

Lamag M. (2018). Acceptability of Cassava Flour and Malunggay Leaves Pandesal in Varying
Amount of Flour. Qurino State University.

Marshall C. (2021). Plapjacks vs. Pancakes: What are they and What’s the Difference?.
https://thekitchencommunity.org

Merano, V. (2009). Espasol. (Retrieved from http://panlasangpinoy.com/2009/10/24/espasol.,

Accessed: July 15, 2013).

Manner, H. 2011. Farm and forestry production and marketing profile for giant swamp taro.
(Retrieved from http:// agroforestry.net/scps, Accessed: August 3, 2013).

Moseman K., 2018 SORGHUM PANCAKES (GLUTEN FREE) https://www.google.com/url?

free%2F&usg=AOvVaw2mLHY8UokXoFnZGzoo9 4b&cshid=1669030479322409

Martin (2007). Feast: why humans share food. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. ISBN 9780199209019. OCLC 75713258.

Wolf (2017). The Potential of Pancake utilizing Promo Box

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-rizal
system/businessresearch/chapter-1-and-chapter-3-of-reseacrch-entitled-the
potential-of-pancake-utilizing-promo-box/20523337

Nicki Wolf (2017). Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 of Reseacrch entitled The Potential of Pancake
utilizing Promo Box. Business Research. University of Rizal System Academic
Year 2021-2022

Njintang YN, Mbofung CMF, Moates GK, Parker ML, Craig F, Smith AC, Waldron KW.
Functional properties of five varieties of taro flour, and relationship to creep
recovery and sensory characteristics of achu (taro-based paste) J Food
Eng. 2007;82:114–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.12.023. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

Nierenberg (2012) Giant Swamp Taro: Untapped Potential in the Pacific.

https://weblogtheworld.com/formats/featured/giant-swamp
tarountapped-potential-in-the-pacific
Prana T K, Prana M S and Kuswara T (2003) Taro production, constraints and future research
and development program in Indonesia in Guariano L, Taylor M, Osborn T, editors
Proceedings of 3rd Taro Symposium 2003 May 21-23 Nadi, Fiji (Suva (FJ):
Secretariat of the Pacific Community) pp152-154.

Pahila J., Lozada E., Bedano J.A, Ami L. (2013). Flour substitution and nutrient fortification of
butter cookies with underutilized agricultural products. AAB Bioflux, 2013,
Volume 5, Issue 3. http://www.aab.bioflux.com

Riis J., (2016). CHAPTER I - Chapter I INTRODUCTION.  page 1 – 3.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/17899122/CHAPTER-I/

The Living RainForest, (2006) Giant taro (Alocasia macrorrhizos)

https://livingrainforest.org/learning-resources/giant-taro

Verma, V., (2016). Development of Salt tolerant giant swamp taro (Cyrtosperma merkusii
(Hassk.) Schott) and soft taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) through tissue culture.
http://www.micronesialandgrant.org/wp-admin/
 APPENDIX A

CERTIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines

Quirino State University
Diffun, Quirino

To whom it may concern:

This is to certify that the manuscript titled “Acceptability of Giant Swamp Taro

(Cyrtosperma merkussi) Flour in the Production of Pancakes” written by Juzzel Marie P. De

Guzman, Reina May R. Seculles, Princess Faith R. Kileste, Lea A. Apostol has been edited for

English language grammar, punctuation and spelling. The editor guarantees the quality of

English language in the manuscript.

This certification is given this __ day of January 2023 upon the writer’s request for the

reference purposes.

______________________
 English Critic

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

Republic of the Philippines

Quirino State University
Diffun, Quirino

CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY OF GIANT SWAMP TARO (Cyrtosperma merkusii)

FLOUR IN THE PRODUCTION OF PANCAKE

Name (Optional): _____________________ Year level: ___________

Age: ________ Sex: _______________________
Instructions: Examine and taste the sample and put (/) on how much you like or dislike it for
each attribute.
Ratings:
4-Highly Accepted
3- Acceptable
2- Slightly Acceptable
1-Not Acceptable

SAMPLE A Highly Acceptable Slightly Not Acceptable

Accepted (3) Acceptable (1)
(4) (2)
Appearance
Aroma
Taste
Texture
 SAMPLE B Highly Acceptable Slightly Not Acceptable
Accepted (3) Acceptable (1)
(4) (2)
Appearance
Aroma
Taste
Texture

SAMPLE C Highly Acceptable Slightly Not Acceptable

Accepted (3) Acceptable
(4) (2) (1)
Appearance
Aroma
Taste
Texture

SAMPLE D Highly Acceptable Slightly Not Acceptable

Accepted (3) Acceptable
(4) (2) (1)
Appearance
Aroma
Taste
Texture
 APPENDIX C.

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Background

Name: Lea Agustin Apostol

Address: Dumanisi, Diffun Quirino

Age: 23 years old

Birthdate: August 5, 1999

Parents: Sonny G. Apostol

Angelita A. Apostol

Educational Background

Primary Level: Dumanisi, Elementary, School

(Dumanisi, Difffun, Quirino)

2011-2012

Secondary Level: Diffun Nation High School

(Aurora East, Diffun Quirino)

2018-2019

Tertiary Level: Quirino State University,

(Andres Bonifacio, Diffun Quirino)

Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education

 2022-2023

Name: Juzzel Marie Pacis De Guzman

Address: Maria Clara, Diffun Quirino

Age: 22 years old

Birthdate: September 11, 2000

Parents: Rodolfo B. De Guzman Jr.

Hazel P. De Guzman

Personal Background

Educational Background

Primary Level: Maria Clara, Elementary, School

(Maria Clara, Difffun, Quirino)

2012-2013

Secondary Level: Diffun Nation High School

(Aurora East, Diffun Quirino)

2018-2019

Tertiary Level: Quirino State University,

(Andres Bonifacio, Diffun Quirino)

Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education

2022-2023
Name: Princess Faith Regino Kileste

Address: Balagbag, Diffun Quirino

Age: 21 years old

Birthdate: April 30, 2001

Parents: Allan C. Kileste

Leonida R. Kileste

Personal Background

Educational background

Primary Level: Balagbag, Elementary, School

(Balagbag, Difffun, Quirino)

2012-2013

Secondary Level: Quirino General High School

(Zamora, Cabarroguis, Quirino)

2016-2017

Cabarroguis National School of Arts and Trades

(Gundaway Cabarroguis, Quirino)

2018-2019

Tertiary Level: Quirino State University,

(Andres Bonifacio, Diffun Quirino)

Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education

2022-2023
Personal Background

Name: Reina May Raymundo Seculles

Address: Andres Bonifacio, Diffun Quirino

Age: 21 years old

Birthdate: May 16, 2001

Parents: Emmanuel L. Seculles

Frecy R. Seculles

Educational Background

Primary Level: Andres Bonifacio, Elementary, School

(Andres Bonifacio, Difffun, Quirino)

2012-2013

Secondary Level: Diffun Nation High School

(Aurora East, Diffun Quirino)

2018-2019

Tertiary Level: Quirino State University,

(Andres Bonifacio, Diffun Quirino)

Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education

2022-2023
 APPENDIX D

DOCUMENTATION

First Year BTLED Students Taste Test

Second Year BTLED Students Taste Test

Third Year BTLED Students Taste Test

Fourth Year BTLED Students Taste Test