loading...

Hedonic Test and Hedonic Quality

REPORT SENSORY EVALUATION PRACTICUM

TEST HEDONIC AND QUALITY HEDONIC




By:
Mohammad Wasil
J1A114013



AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTUREOF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY
UNIVERSITYJAMBI
2016




CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1      Background of
Growing food and beverage industry is very concentrated. Food and beverage products circulating in the community and the number of species is already very much. There are foods and beverages that are marketed in all circles konsunten of low-income consumers to high-end customers, there are also the kind of food and drink provided or marketed only to certain consumers. Common type of food or drink that is similar to the form, packaging, and taste, but it has a very big difference of price. This will naturally lead to the question mark why the price is different. One of the plays here is the company's ability to create the image attached to them.
The first assessment of consumer to the food product is based on sensory characteristics such as flavor, texture, appearance and feel. Therefore, it can dilakuakan hedonic quality test and hedonic test against the product to be marketed and are useful as an overview of the level of consumer preferences towards product. Therefore, the hedonic quality testing becomes very important as an evaluation which will be useful as a learning material to reduce the weaknesses in the product and can create the latest innovation and improve product quality.

1.2      Objective
To determine the value of the sample (material) which will be presented based on appearance, taste, and color.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1Affection Test
This test method affectionis a method used to measure the subjective nature of consumers towards products based on sensory properties. Results obtained are acceptance (accepted or rejected). A (level like atu do not like), and options (choose one from the other) for the product. What should be emphasized in the test of affection is that the choice (preference) is not the same as acceptance, it could be a panelist rather than cotnto B sample A, but both examples are acceptable (Setyaningsih, D., 2010).
There are three methods that can be done in the presentation of the sample under test is monadic affection, squential monadic, and presentation in pairs (paired presentation) all of the examples presented in time. In squential monadic, the example is presented in a series to be presented at the same time. Meanwhile, on the presentation of pairs, the examples presented by the two or one pair at the same time (Setyaningsih, D., 2010).
The main purpose of the test was to determine the response of affection induvidual form of acceptance or liking of consumers to existing products, new products or just used for food producers, but also by service providers such as hospitals and banks. Test of affection may be qualitative and quantitative. Affection quantitative test is used to measure the subjective response of a sample by appropriate consumer sensory characteristics by making consumers menyampaiakn what he felt in an interview or group discussion. In the qualitative test, a moderator or interviewer will interact directly with consumers (panelist), so that the interviewer or moderator should learn how to investigate techniques to appear neutral, how to summarize and report clearly and choose the membership of discussion groups in order to maintain the dynamic (Setyaningsih, D. 2010).
Acceptance test on the test more subjective than a differentiator, because it is so subjective, some panelists who have an extreme tendency happy or hate towards a commodity or material that can be used to perform acceptance testing. In this group the reception is included hedonic test, hedonic quality test and quality test scalar (Setyaningsih, D., 2010).
2.2 Test passions (hedonic test)
A test is also called hedonic test, performed when testing of designs to choose one product among other products directly. This test can be applied at the time of development of products or comparative products with competitors' products. Test with my favorite panelist's request must choose one option among others. Therefore, products that are not been able to show that the product is liked or disliked. Panelists are asked about favorite personal response or vice versa (dislike). Besides the panelists argued happy response, like or the opposite, they also noted the level of preference. The levels of A is called hedonic scale. Hedonic scale can also be stretched or discharged according to the range of scale that will pleases. Hedonic scale can also be converted into a numerical scale with quality scores according to the level of preference. With the numerical data can be analyzed in parameterik (Soekarto, 1985).
Rate the hedonic test was conducted spontaneous. It panelists were asked to rate the products on-site and at the time it was also tried without comparing with the product before or after (Raharjo, 2000)

2.3 Quality Test hedonic
contrast to the hedonic test, quality test hedonic not express likes or dislikes but expressed the impression on good or bad. Good or bad impression of this so-called hedonic quality impression. Therefore bebeapa experts put it into the hedonic quality test hedaonik test. The hedonic quality impression is more specific than just the impression of like or dislike. Besifat hedonic quality can be public, that is good or bad and are soft-hard meat. Fluffier-hard rice and crunchy cucumbers. Range hedonic scale ranging from very bad to very good. Hedonic scale on hedonic quality test until the hedonic quality level. Total levels of scale also depends on the quality of the desired range of sensitivity between the scale. The principle of this hedonic quality test to try a product without comparing with other samples (Nuraini, 2013).


CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGYPRACTICUM

3.1Time and place
Practicalit held on Friday, April 1st, 2016 at 07.30 pm in the Processing Laboratory (Kitchen) Faculty of Agriculture, University of Edinburgh.
3.2 Equipment and Materials
Equipment used in this lab, namely, plastic cups (cup), spoons, stationery panelists and questionnaires. The materials used are, Frisian Flag (code 815) and Indomilk (code 384) and mineral water.
3.3 Working procedure
Prepared two samples of milk with code 815 (Frisian Flag) and milk with code 384 (Indomilk). Panelists were asked to express their likes and dislikes for hedonic test and express subjective judgments to color and flavor to the hedonic quality test. Filled responses on questionnaires.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Observations
Table 4.1.1 Quality Test Results hedonicColor
Panelists
Sample Code
815
384
P1
5
5
P2
4
3
P3
4
4
P4
5
5
P5
5
5
P6
5
5
P7
5
5
P8
5
4
P9
4
3
P10
4
3
P11
5
5
P12
5
4
P13
4
5
P14
4
4
P15
4
3
P16
5
5
P17
5
5
P18
5
4
P19
4
4
P20
4
4
P21
5
4
P22
5
4
P23
5
4
P24
5
5
P25
5
5
P26
3
5
P27
4
4
P28
5
5
P29
5
4
P30
5
4
P31
5
5
P32
5
4
P33
5
5
P34
4
5
P35
4
4
P36
5
4
P37
4
5
P38
5
3
P39
5
4
P40
5
5
P41
4
3
Total
190
176

4.2 Discussion
hedonic test lab tested two samples are Frisian Flag with code 815 and 384. the code Indomilk with panelists sought feedback on preferences or otherwise (dislike). From the analysis, the panelists expressed love for both products. There is no dominant of a product, the percentage is 50%. Then calculate ANOVA, From the analysis using ANOVA showed that the A test, calculated F value of 0.89 and compared with F table which is worth 4.08 at the 5% level. It turned out that F count is smaller than F table so that it can be concluded that there is no real difference of Frisian Flag and Indomilk.
Unlike the hedonic quality test, hedonic quality does not express likes or dislikes but expressed about the good or bad impression. The hedonic quality impression is more specific than just the impression of like or dislike. In this lab specifications rated the colors and flavors. From the analysis using ANOVA showed that the taste tests, calculated F value of 0.0038 and compared with F table which is worth 4.08 at the 5% level. It turned out that F count is smaller than F table so that it can be concluded that there is no significant difference in the taste of the Frisian Flag and Indomilk.
While on the color, the value of F count larger than F table, the F table 8,24 and 4,08 at 5% level. It can be concluded that there is a noticeable difference in color between the Frisian Flag milk and Indomilk. If you give significantly different results can be tested further by an analysis of commonly used Duncan test.
CHAPTER IV
CLOSING
5.1 Conclusion
Hedonic test on milk, obtained F count is smaller than F table so that between two milk samples berdeda not real, and panellists expressed love for both products. There is no dominant of a product, the percentage is 50%. In the hedonic quality test F count larger than F table on color specifications so that the color of milk significantly different, and can be tested further by an analysis of commonly used Duncan test. While the specification taste calculated F value smaller than F table so that in a sense between the two milk samples berdeda not real. Used comparison with the F table at 5% level.

REFERENCES


Nuraini, et al.2013.Practical HintsSensoryEvaluation.PS Food Science and Technology: Purwokerto
Setyaningsih, Dwi, et al. 2010.Analysis of Sensory Evaluation For Food and Agro Industries.IPB Press: Bogor
Soekarto, ST 1985.Appearance Assessment.Work Bharata Script: Jakarta
Raharjo. 2001.AssessmentAppearance.Work Bharata Script: Jakarta

Subscribe to receive free email updates:

0 Response to "Hedonic Test and Hedonic Quality"

Post a Comment

Terimakasih Sudah Mengunjungi Blog Ini, Silahkan Tinggalkan Komentar!