1. Home
  2. Vol 1, No 2 (2022)
  3. Afzal

Consumers’ Acceptability of Vegan-meatball Varieties as Commercial Meatballs

Maryam B. Afzal(1), Precious Angel M. Dolor(2), Isiah F. Jamison(3), Khirtz Rianne Edgar M. Sevelleno(4), Anamarie G. Valdez(5),


(1) Sultan Kudarat State University
(2) Sultan Kudarat State University
(3) Sultan Kudarat State University
(4) Sultan Kudarat State University
(5) Sultan Kudarat State University
Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study aimed to learn about the level of acceptability of plant-based meatballs in terms of food quality and to determine whether there is a significant difference in the overall acceptability of each formulation developed.  The production was set up using the study’s product formulation, and a quantitative-descriptive research design was employed. To evaluate the products, respondent-consumers were chosen randomly near the residences in Sultan Kudarat province. After the three formulations were prepared according to a specific procedure, these respondents tasted and evaluated the vegan meatballs. The results revealed that each food quality of the three formulations received a high level of acceptability, with formulation 1 having the highest computed mean and low standard deviation, followed by formulations 3 and 2, respectively. The ANOVA results have also suggested that the overall acceptability of the three formulations has no significant difference, which results in accepting the null hypothesis tested. This study concluded that the food quality of the three vegan-meatball formulations in terms of appearance, taste, aroma, texture, and overall acceptability received a high level of acceptability as an alternative to commercial meatballs. There is also no significant difference in the overall acceptability of the three formulations. Lastly, formulation 1 is the most preferred vegan-meatballs substitute.

Keywords


Acceptability; Meat alternatives; Meatballs; Plant-based meat; Varieties; Vegan meatballs

References


Atmowardoyo, H. (2018). Research methods in TEFL studies: Descriptive research, case study, error analysis, and R and D. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1), 197-204.

Bolhuis, D. P., and Forde, C. G. (2020). Application of food texture to moderate oral processing behaviors and energy intake. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 106, 445-456.

Cariño, M., and Monteforte, M. (2018). Las minas marinas del Golfo de California: del extractivismo a la sustentabilidad. Relaciones. Estudios de Historia y Sociedad, 39(153), 11-39.

Cordelle, S., Redl, A., and Schlich, P. (2022). Sensory acceptability of new plant protein meat substitutes. Food Quality and Preference, 98, 104508.

González, N., Marquès, M., Nadal, M., and Domingo, J. L. (2020). Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Research International, 137(2020), 109341.

He, J., Evans, N. M., Liu, H., and Shao, S. (2020). A review of research on plant‐based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 19(5), 2639-2656.

Kim, T. K. (2017). Understanding one-way ANOVA using conceptual figures. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 70(1), 22-26.

Lee, H. J., Yong, H. I., Kim, M., Choi, Y. S., and Jo, C. (2020). Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market—A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 33(10), 1533.

Michel, F., Hartmann, C., and Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104063.

Mudrak, R., Nyzhnyk, I., Lagodiienko, V., and Lagodiienko, N. (2019). Impact of seasonal production on the dynamics of prices for meat and dairy products in Ukraine. TEM Journal, 8(4), 1159.

Ouyang, Y., Behnke, C., Almanza, B., and Ghiselli, R. (2018). The influence of food aromas on restaurant consumer emotions, perceptions, and purchases. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 27(4), 405-423.

Pellegrino, R., McNelly, C., and Luckett, C. R. (2021). Subjective touch sensitivity leads to behavioral shifts in oral food texture sensitivity and awareness. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-9.

Radulescu, A., Shin, Y. S., and Niv, Y. (2021). Human representation learning. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 44(1), 253-273.


Full Text: PDF

Article Metrics

Abstract View : 2733 times
PDF Download : 4207 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Yayasan Bumi Publikasi Nusantara

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.