Commercial Taro Chip Development Using Agri-Chain Partnerships a Processing, Marketing and Financial Analysis

Commercial Taro Chip Development using Agri-chain Partnerships A processing, marketing and financial analysis

A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by Vic O’Keefe, Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries (DPI&F) Greg Mason (DPI&F) Alison Willis (DPI&F) Gwen Bell (DPI&F)

September 2005

RIRDC Publication No 05/144 RIRDC Project No DAQ-296A

ISBN 1 74151 207 7 ISSN 1440-6845

Commercial taro chip development using agri-chain partnerships Publication No. 05/144 Project No. DAQ-296A

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable industries. The information should not be relied upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Specialist and/or appropriate legal advice should be obtained before any action or decision is taken on the basis of any material in this document. The Commonwealth of Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, the authors or contributors do not assume liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from any person's use or reliance upon the content of this document.

This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details Vic O’Keefe Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries PO Box 1085 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 Phone: 07 4722 2689 Fax: 07 4778 2036 Email: [email protected]

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4819 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: [email protected]. Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in September 2005 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

Foreword

Presented in this report is a detailed analysis of the processing, marketing and economic potential of producing a salty snack made from taro Colocasia esculenta. This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds, which are provided by the Federal Government. Funding assistance was also provided by NQ Taro Growers Pty Ltd. This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of more than 1500 research publications. It forms part of our Asian foods R&D program, which aims to support industry in its drive to develop new products and markets and to gain competitive advantage through improving productivity in, and achieving price premiums for, Australian production. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop.

Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

iii

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and support of people who have provided information for this project, including: • North Queensland Taro Growers • snack/confectionery wholesalers • distributors • retailers • input suppliers • Ian Plowman, focus group facilitator • James R. Hollyer, University of Hawaii at Manoa,

For assistance with the processing/technical requirements section of the project: • Clark Annand, Senior Laboratory Technician • Jason Hancock, Food Technologist • Marie Lewis, Food Technologist • Christine Gore, Senior Laboratory Technician • Kevin Matikinyidze, Pilot Plant Trainee • Darren Leighton, Technical Processing Assistant • Bob Isaacs, Senior Food Technologist,

For assistance with the sensory evaluation section of the project: • Claire Reid, Food Scientist • Steve Nottingham, Senior Research Scientist

For liaison with industry and project management: • Steve Grauf, Senior Food Industry Consultant • Brett Wedding, Senior Food Industry Consultant.

Contents Foreword ...... iii Acknowledgments ...... iv Executive summary ...... vi Objectives...... vi Methodology...... vi Marketing assessment...... vi Business assessment ...... vii Processing/technical requirements...... vii Sensory evaluation...... viii Conclusion...... viii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Objectives...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 1 1.3 Methodology ...... 1 2. Section A - Salty snack food market...... 2 2.1 Objectives...... 2 2.2 Methodology ...... 2 2.3 Market size...... 2 2.4 Competitive intensity...... 3 2.5 Case study...... 5 2.6 Ease of entry and barriers to entry in the Australian salty snack market...... 6 2.7 Focus groups...... 12 2.8 Focus group summary ...... 20 3. Section B - Financial analysis...... 21 3.1 Objective ...... 21 3.2 Financial analysis ...... 21 3.3 Scenario analysis ...... 22 3.4 Conclusion...... 27 4. Section C - Processing/technical requirements ...... 28 4.1 Objectives...... 28 4.2 Methodology ...... 28 4.3 Evaluating slice thickness and cooking time...... 29 4.4 Comparison of chip quality produced from nine and 12-month-old taro...... 29 4.5 Selection of frying oil...... 31 4.6 Modification of slice thickness...... 33 4.7 Influence of corm section on quality of chips ...... 34 4.8 Evaluation of storage conditions of corms on taro chip quality ...... 38 4.9 Salt addition...... 44 4.10 Influence of using inferior quality taro corms on taro chip quality...... 44 4.11 Quality of taro chips for consumer acceptance testing...... 49 4.12 Quality of taro chips for focus group testing...... 51 4.13 Taro chip yield...... 51 4.14 Nutrition information...... 52 4.15 Ingredient list...... 53 4.16 Storage trial...... 53 5. Section D - Sensory evaluation...... 60 5.1 Objectives...... 60 5.2 Methodology ...... 60 5.3 Consumer demographics ...... 63 5.4 Sensory evaluation results ...... 65 6. Conclusions ...... 69 7. Appendices ...... 70 7.1 Appendix 1...... 70 7.2 Appendix 2...... 71 7.3 Appendix 3...... 73 7.4 Appendix 4...... 80 7.5 Appendix 5...... 82

v Executive summary Taro is mostly consumed in Australia as a fresh product. Selling occurs through major central markets as well as smaller regional outlets. Fresh taro fluctuates in supply and price and in some instances may be sold below the cost of production. A group of growers with many years of industry experience in producing taro decided to investigate a taro chip manufacturing plant to enable taro growers to achieve more stable incomes by providing an alternative outlet for their crop and to create jobs in a region that suffers from high unemployment. The growers saw the chips as having a very attractive appearance and a distinctive natural taste, texture and colour, and that these characteristics would enable the development of a product with strong market appeal. Taro chips have not been produced in commercial quantities in Australia at present and currently are mainly home-cooked for family and friends. Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of establishing a taro chip processing industry in North Queensland. Elements in the study included: • Developing a taro chip product. • Undertaking a sensory evaluation of that product. • Determining market characteristics and identifying potential markets for the product. • Undertaking an economic feasibility assessment of the taro chips. Methodology Research for this taro chip project was broken down into four separate areas. These were market assessment, business assessment, determining processing and technical requirements, and sensory evaluation. This report presents the findings of the research in those areas and summaries for each follow. Marketing assessment The average Australian spends around $30 per person each year on salty snacks. The salty snack grocery category in Australia is growing at 5 to 7 per cent per annum by value. Two companies, Smiths Snack Food Company and Arnott’s Snack Foods, dominate the Australian salty snack market. Between them they account for more than 80 per cent of this market. Salty snack products are pitched towards four consumer segments - health conscious, convenience, kids and premium/indulgence. Interviews with a number of distributors and retailers suggested that the proposed taro chip would be best pitched toward the premium indulgence segment of the salty snack market. This segment of the market is growing and would best suit the proposed product’s distinctive appearance. Likely competitors in this segment include Kettle Sweet Potato Chips, Red Rock Deli Chips, Pringles and Ajitas Vege Chips. Two focus group assessments provided favourable comment on the palatability of the taro chips. However price was often cited as being the most significant factor to limit purchase. In Hawaii taro chips are produced predominantly for the tourism market, a market similar to premium indulgence segment identified for North Queensland. Growth in this market has been static in recent years, with an inability to secure regular volumes of supply and a downturn in the tourism market cited as the major factors. Distribution and supply chain partnering in the Australian retail market pose a number of challenges for the proposed taro chip. Given the envisaged limited scale of the North Queensland taro chip operation, approaching either of the two major supermarket chains directly was not recommended.

Distribution through the IGA and convenience stores (C-Stores) in North and Far North Queensland would provide the most manageable solution. Business assessment A spreadsheet was prepared to enable the growers to undertake a whole budget analysis for the processing factory. Growers then entered their estimates of processing, marketing and distribution costs. The analyses indicated that, given grower requirements of $2.50/kg for the raw product supplied to the factory, a taro chip processing business would not be profitable. Processing/technical requirements Taro corms were harvested in the Babinda/Innisfail area of Far North Queensland and transported by road at ambient temperature to Brisbane arriving approximately five days after harvest. The taro corms were nine months old at the time of harvest. Upon arrival in Brisbane, the cartons of taro were stored at 10°C until processing. Taro corms were peeled by hand using a domestic potato peeler and then sliced using a ham/meat slicer. Due to the large size of the corms, most slices were cut into quarters using a domestic kitchen knife. After slicing, the raw taro slices were fried, and then drained for 10 seconds before being added to a tumbler for salt to be added. Numerous trials were conducted to determine the optimal slice thickness, oil temperature and frying time. A slice thickness of between 1.5-1.75mm, cooked for 60 seconds at 180-185°C with 7% salt addition (based on final chip weight), produced chips with the most uniform colour and texture. It is essential to stir the taro chips during the initial 20 seconds of frying to prevent the chips sticking together. Three different frying oils were trialed for manufacturing taro chips, with cottonseed oil being the most suitable in terms of colour, texture and flavour. Trials were conducted to determine the quality of chips produced with 12-month-old taro corms. Taro chips produced using the method for the nine-month-old taro were brown and undesirable. Several pre-treatments of the raw taro slices were investigated, with water blanching of the taro slices at 90°C for 3-5 minutes being the most effective treatment. The effect the age of the taro has on the acceptability of the finished chip shows that nine-month-old taro produces a superior quality chip without the need for any pre-treatment stage. During the course of the trial work, it became apparent that chips produced from the top of the taro corm were a darker colour than chips produced from the middle of the corm. This did not, however, necessarily mean that all of the chips from the top of the corms were unacceptable. Analysis of the corms showed that the top of the corm tends to have a higher moisture content than the middle of the corm (an average of 4.4% higher from all results), a higher reducing sugar content than the middle of the corm (an average of 0.15% higher) and a lower starch content than the middle of the corm (an average of 5.6% lower). The effect of different storage conditions of the taro corms on the final chip quality was investigated. Taro corms were stored at 4°C and 10°C over a period of two weeks, with chips being produced initially, after one week’s storage and after two weeks’ storage. The results of this storage trial showed that taro corms can be stored for one week at either 4°C or 10°C without any substantial loss in taro chip quality. Storage for two weeks resulted in undesirable browning in some of the chips produced from these batches. The analytical results showed there was less change in the key parameters of the taro stored at 10°C than occurred in the taro stored at 4°C. Trials were conducted to identify which type of taro corm produced an inferior chip. It was anticipated this information could be used to screen taro corms suitable for chip processing. However, all of the taro corms from four separate shipments supplied for this trial and identified by the grower as being inferior or damaged in some way produced acceptable taro chips. Moisture contents varied from 57.8%-74.9%, total sugar contents .3%-1.1%, reducing sugar contents 0.2-0.6% and starch content 5%-25.9%. Therefore, it was not possible from these trials to identify any particular parameter of the taro corm that would produce sub-quality taro chips.

vii

However, the quality of the chips produced for the consumer acceptance testing was sub-optimal. The appearance of the chips was browner than was considered desirable and the chips also appeared oily. A review of analytical results from previous batches of taro showed the reducing sugar content of this taro was quite high compared with many previous samples. Yield calculations were conducted while producing taro chips for the storage trial. When conducted under the conditions described in this report, an average yield of 29.5% was recorded. A storage trial of the taro chips was conducted. The trial investigated the shelf life of the chips when stored in 50 g, 100 g and 200 g packaging and stored at the temperatures of 20°C and 30°C. It determined if modifying the atmosphere in the chip packaging produced any discernible quality differences in the chips over the course of the storage trial. Sensory evaluation Consumers from Brisbane were recruited to assess four samples of taro chips. The 72 people chosen were at least 18 years old and had eaten at least one variety of premium indulgence chips (Kettle Chips, Red Rock Deli Chips, Pringles or Ajitas Vege Chips) in the past six months. No significant differences (P>0.05) were found between the four samples of taro chips in terms of appearance, odour, flavour, texture or overall acceptability. For all of these characteristics the scores ranged from 52 to 61, which was just above the neither like nor dislike region of the scale. The scores relating to the size and crunchiness of the taro chips suggest the consumers thought all the taro chips sampled were slightly on the small size and were not quite crunchy enough. However, in terms of saltiness and thickness, the mean sensory scores for the sample that was 1.5 to 1.75 mm thick with 7% salt was closer to ‘just right’ than the other three samples. Conclusion Due to the high cost of raw material (taro), it was determined that the commercialisation of the proposed taro chip product should not proceed at this point in time. However positive results from focus group discussions and consumer acceptance panels suggest there is a small market for a premium/exotic salty snack product in the domestic market. Further investigations into manufacturing chips from other less expensive root crops could be undertaken. If mechanisation can reduce the farm-gate price of processing taro to below $1.50/kg, commercialisation of the product could be reconsidered. During the course of the trial work, there were indications that reducing sugar contents of 0.9% and higher would produce a chip with undesirable browning. However, this requires substantiation and, should it be confirmed, it is recommended that a ‘rapid on farm’ test be developed to screen taro corms suitable for further chip production.

viii

1. Introduction

1.1 Objectives • Identify market characteristics and potential markets for opportunities to establish supply chain alliances. • Complete an economic feasibility of taro chips in various identified market segments. • Develop a market acceptable taro chip product.

1.2 Background Taro is mostly consumed in Australia as a fresh product. Selling occurs through major central markets as well as smaller regional outlets. Fresh taro fluctuates in supply and price and in some instances may be sold below the cost of production. A group of growers with many years of industry experience in producing taro decided to initiate a taro chip manufacturing plant based on the following assumptions: • This project will create jobs in areas that suffer from unemployment. • Fresh taro suffers from seasonal fluctuations in price and a taro chip factory could allow growers to achieve more stable income. • Taro chips are very attractive in appearance with a distinctive natural taste, texture and colour, which may provide attractive market attributes. Taro chips have not been produced in commercial quantities in Australia at present and currently are mainly home-cooked for family and friends. Initial research by the group indicated there were prospects for improving returns to producers through value-adding beyond smaller ‘cottage industry’ supply volumes.

1.3 Methodology Research has been undertaken in four specific areas. This report presents the findings of the research in those areas: A Market B Economics C Processing and technical requirements D Sensory evaluation.

2. Section A - Salty snack food market

2.1 Objectives • To outline the market characteristics and potential markets for the proposed product, ‘Taro Chips’. • To identify potential supply chain partners throughout North and Far North Queensland in the short term and nationally in the medium term.

2.2 Methodology For the purpose of this document, the proposed taro chip product has been classified in the salty snack food category. This simplifies collection and comparison of the most relevant industry data. Information for this section has been gathered from retail industry journals, supermarket promotional materials, electronic media, and discussions with food retailers, category managers, distributors and brokers. Based on the market information, a list of suggested demographics was developed to select participants for consumer testing and focus group exercises. Appointments were arranged between project proponents and a number of retailers, distributors and wholesalers throughout North Queensland.

2.3 Market size

Table 1A Australian salty snack market (includes potato chips, corn chips, pretzels, and extruded products but excludes rice crackers and nuts).

1999 2000 2001 2002 Grocery value $410.5m $445.2m $487.5m $501.3m Grocery volume (tonnes) 33 914.7 35 502.6 36 358.2 40 330.3 Source: Grocery Industry Marketing Guide 2001 (Retail Media).

Based on the figures above, the average Australian would spend around $30 per person each year on salty snacks. The relative segment shares for each salty snack sub category in 2001 were as follows.

Table 2A Australian salty snack segment shares Segment 2001 value share 2001 volume share Potato chips $276.9m (56.8%) 21 044 tonnes (53.3%) Corn chips $ 72.1m (14.8%) 7 322 tonnes (18.6%) Extruded $ 68.6m (14.1%) 5 751 tonnes (14.6%) Mixed packs $ 37.9m (7.8%) 2 672 tonnes (6.8%) Miscellaneous $ 22.3m (4.6%) 1 695 tonnes (4.3%) Pretzels $ 9.7m (2.0%) 985 tonnes (2.5%) Total $487.5m 36 358 tonnes Source: Grocery Industry Marketing Guide 2001 (Retail Media). Overall the salty snack category in Australia is growing at 5-7% per annum by value. Some segments within this category are growing at a much greater rate than others. Companies able to meet consumers’ increasing demands for convenient, premium and in some cases, healthier products, are driving this growth. The rice crackers category (not included in the above figures) has experienced significant growth in the past few years. This category is currently valued at about $90 million and growing in both volume and value at a rate in excess of 45% per annum (Retail Media 2001). Much of this growth can be attributed to significant investment in promotions and manufacturers rectifying consumer concerns over a ‘lack of flavour’.

2.4 Competitive intensity It is a valuable exercise to gauge the number of direct, substitute and generic competitors in the market and their relative market share. The Australian salty snack market is dominated by two major players: • Smiths Snack food Company (part of Pepsico/Frito-Lay, the world’s biggest salty snack company) • Arnott’s Snack foods (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Campbells Soup Company). Between them they account for more than 80% of the salty snack market by value. (Retail Media 2001). These two large multinationals have million dollar promotional budgets and thousands of production and field sales staff. Campbell’s Soup Company (Arnott’s parent company) and Pepsico (Smiths parent company) are ranked 9th and 21st respectively in Australia’s top 25 grocery advertisers in 2001 (AC Nielson). Competition between companies in the snack-food market is intense, with most targeting specific market segments and constantly reinventing products and promotions in an attempt to gain or maintain market share. Market share figures between brands are extremely volatile. Thousands of products are presented to the major chains and independent retailers for ‘ranging’ each year. In 2000, 17 new snack-food products were launched nationally (Retail World 2001).

Table 3A Salty snack brands Company Brand Type of product Smiths Smith’s Crisps Corrugated potato chips Lays Flat sliced potato chips Red Rock Deli Premium potato chips Doritos Corn chips Burger Rings Extruded Twisties Extruded cheese flavour Cheetos Extruded cheese and bacon flavour Parker’s Pretzels Arnotts Snack Foods Samboy Corrugated potato chips Thins Flat sliced potato chips Kettle Chips Premium potato chips CC’s Corn chips Cheezels Extruded cheese flavour. Colvan Potato chip and extruded. Rix Rice crackers French Fries Potato french fries Proctor and Gamble Pringles Flat extruded potato chips Others Freers1 Extruded chip, corrugated potato chip and flat sliced baked potato chips Sakata Rice snacks Real McCoy Snack Corrugated potato chips Food Co Ajitas Extruded cassava chips Byron Bay Chilli Co Corn chips

Note: 1 Freers – In liquidation September 2003. Approximately 200 unsecured creditors are owed $4.3 million.

The power and value of a ‘brand’ cannot be underestimated. The vast majority of Australian consumers are unaware of what taro is let alone consumed it. If picked up and subsequently ranged by retailers, the proposed chip product would occupy shelf space alongside the salty snacks listed above.

2.4.1 Segmentation Each product/brand in the domestic salty snack market tends to be targeted towards a few specific segments of the broader market. Segment Selling points Health conscious/goodness no cholesterol, 40% less fat etc Convenience multi packs, combination deals Kids packs include toys/collectables like Pokemon, Tazos, Dragonballz etc Premium promoted as indulgence/treat yourself products

Based on discussions with distributors and retailers it seems that the proposed taro chip would be best pitched toward the premium indulgence segment of the market. Some of common questions/comments made by existing players in the salty snack supply chain include: • Can the product meet the needs of the target segment? • If taro chips are targeted at the high end of the premium/indulgence market, can they deliver? • Are taro chips that much better than other salty snacks? • Is the colour, texture or taste really that much different to existing chips? • What is the promotional budget? How will the market get to know about taro chips? • Is this product genuinely new or different? Will it create incremental sales or take them from existing products i.e. cannibalisation?

2.5 Case study

2.5.1 Taro processing in USA (Hawaii and mainland) Over the past five years, production of taro in Hawaii has fluctuated between 2700 tonnes and 3200 tonnes from around 170 hectares. Approximately 95% of taro grown in Hawaii is processed into poi, with the remaining 5% processed into chips or consumed fresh (Source – United States Department of Agriculture). The farm gate price per pound for both poi taro and Chinese taro (bun long) has averaged $US0.53 per pound for the past five or so years. Converted to Australian dollars, this figure equates to $1.80-2.20/kg.

2.5.2 Poi Poi is a processed taro product that is consumed almost exclusively in Hawaii. Poi taro is milled/pounded until it forms a smooth, thick, sticky paste. Poi is a staple food for the people of Hawaii, often consumed with fish, seaweed and other root crops. There are about 10 poi processors/millers in Hawaii, half are located on the ‘Big Island’ with the remainder operating among the other islands of Molokai, Oahu, Kauai and Maui islands. More than 80% of the poi taro is marketed from Kauai. After a decade of growth (3% per annum) during the 1990s the volume of poi produced has reduced in recent years. Adverse weather conditions, pest and disease pressures and a slump in tourism numbers in Hawaii have all contributed to the 6% reduction in poi taro millings. Other taro products manufactured in Hawaii include taro bread mix and taro pancake mix. Both these products incorporate dehydrated poi.

2.5.3 Taro chips Much of the Chinese taro produced in Hawaii (currently 150 tonnes) gets turned into chips. There are five commercial taro-chipping operations in Hawaii (see Figure 1A).

Figure 1A Figure 2A Chips produced in Hawaii Chips produced on US mainland Maui Taro Chips Terra Taro Chips $US3.49 for 5 oz pack $US4.19 for 6 oz pack Hawaii retail price April 2003 Hawaii retail price April 2003 $AU5.35 for 140 g pack $AU6.45 for 170 g pack

Bun long or Chinese taro, almost exclusively grown under dryland conditions, is the primary variety of taro grown for fresh corm sales, chip-making or for leaf sales. The west coast of the Big Island accounts for more than 90% of the state’s total dryland taro acreage. (Hawaii Department of Agriculture). The largest processor of taro chips in the United States is in New York. The company, Terra Chips, manufactures a range of specialty chips made from a range of exotic root vegetables (Figure 2A). The company forms part of the Hain Celestial Group, a significant player in the American natural and specialty snack food market with more than 20 brands. The market for taro chips has not grown in Hawaii in the past five years. In fact, a number of commercial taro processors have ceased operations in recent times. Problems with raw material supply, distribution and a downturn in the tourism market have been cited as contributing factors in the closures.

2.6 Ease of entry and barriers to entry in the Australian salty snack market Information for this section was gained from industry journals, supermarket promotional material and a number of personal interviews.

2.6.1 Retail chain stores (supermarkets) The retail industry has consolidated in recent years. The relative market share of the major supermarket chains is worth noting. With market share comes significant influence and power. Woolworths and Coles are estimated to control 40% and 30% of the nation’s retail grocery market respectively. The remaining 30% is spread amongst FAL, Metcash, Bi Lo and independents. Supermarket store numbers North Queensland1 Queensland Nationally Coles2 17 128 682 Woolworths 21 136 686 1 North Queensland is defined as north of Bowen. 2 Includes Bi-Lo stores.

Coles and Woolworths prefer to range products that have national distribution. Products that have limited production volumes or are targeted at specific regions generally do not get a positive response from supermarket buyers. Each supermarket will generally carry 25,000-30,000 products in its range. Woolworths has a comprehensive New Vendor Presentation Kit that explains its requirements and systems for potential new trading partners. The kit can be found at the Woolworths website: http://www.woolworths.com.au/vendors/vendorguide/index.asp Companies wanting to establish a trading relationship with Woolworths are required to make a formal application to the Woolworths Shared Services Buying and Marketing office at Yennora, New South Wales. Coles has a similar supplier information kit that explains its trading terms and requirements. It can be found at the Coles supplier site: http://www.supplier.coles.com.au The Coles guidelines state suppliers to its supermarkets will share a commitment to: • customer service • the highest ethical standards • innovation • quality • cost control • continuous improvement. Business relationships will be developed with suppliers who provide quality products and services and the most cost effective solutions consistent with Coles’ long-term strategies and objectives.

Supermarket product review and ranging The process of reviewing and selecting product ranges for Woolworths and Coles stores is extensive. Products undergo minor and major reviews each year by supermarket business/category managers based in Sydney and Melbourne. Based on the performance of the product, decisions are made about continuing or deleting lines as well as any changes regarding positioning of the line on store shelves (planogram). New product submissions made during a scheduled category review will be processed more quickly but this is not a strict requirement. New lines will be considered outside of review times in

exceptional circumstances. Individual store managers do not make decisions on which products to range in their stores. Given the envisaged initial limited scale of the taro chip operation, approaching either of the two major supermarket chains directly is not recommended.

Independent grocers North Queensland1 Queensland Nationally IGA2 34 170 1110 AUR3 20 164 540 5 Star – Spar4 13 72 260 1 North Queensland defined as north of Bowen. 2 Includes IGA Supermarkets, IGA Everyday and IGA X-press 3 Includes Food Rite, Food Store and Food Express 4 Includes 5 Star Supermarkets, Freshmart, Handimarket and Super Star Fresh

A number of independent grocers in north Queensland were approached with the proposed taro chips. All commented on the extremely competitive nature of the salty snack market and the merchandising support provided by Smiths and Arnott’s. Some were willing to trial the taro product.

2.6.2 C-stores There are 14 500 C-Stores nationally, including 7-Eleven, Shell Select, Shell Shop, BP Express/Connect, Mobil Quix, Caltex Star Mart, Night Owl and independents.The major oil companies currently control 15% of C-stores throughout Australia (Retail World 2003). In recent times Coles and Woolworths have made significant investments in the C-store industry by partnering with fuel giants Caltex and Shell.

2.6.3 Food service sector There appears to be limited opportunity for the proposed chip product in the food service sector. Chefs and food service staff who were interviewed were unsure of how the taro chip product could be incorporated into existing menus. Currently, corn chips are used extensively in the food service sector as a base for nachos and for dips. These corn chips are generally sold in bulk to restaurants and clubs for about a quarter of the cost of retail packaged corn chips (ie. 4 kg outers for $13.50, equalling 6 x 670 g bags). The proposed taro chip product simply would not be able to compete on price with existing suppliers. When the product was pitched to hotel staff as a bar snack, nearly all indicated that it had some potential, however almost all identified price (four times that of existing snacks) as a major impediment.

Table 4A Distribution channels Distribution channel Advantages Disadvantages Coles/Woolworths National coverage Supply requirements (significant volumes required to service national (Direct) distribution) Warehousing Resources required to manage/maintain facilities/infrastructure trade Market share Promotional budget required to maintain share Independent supermarkets Perceived as being ‘vendor Under increasing pressure from chains friendly’ with ‘every day low prices’ Stores individually owned and operated Decision making power at store level Brokers/wholesalers Access to Lack of market share. Top five retailing/merchandising expertise brokers/distributors control less than 30% of domestic market Manufacturer able to focus on Intimate knowledge of individual production products C-stores Recognised as providing good High maintenance to service large margins number of outlets Access to impulse buyers Smaller volumes of sales Well serviced by brokers/distributors Tourism outlets Manageable Limited market/sales potential Tourism numbers are down 25%

The North Queensland and Far North Queensland (based on ABS statistical divisions) population combined is approximately 450 000 people. With an average spend of $30 per person each year on salty snacks (Retail Media 2002), the North and Far North Queensland market for all salty snacks would be in the vicinity of $15 000 000 each year. The proposed taro chips would be categorised in the miscellaneous segment of the market alongside products such as Kettle Sweet Potato Chips. The miscellaneous category currently accounts for about 5% of sales (Table 2A). These figures put total sales of miscellaneous salty snacks in the North and Far North regions of Queensland at approximately $750 000 per annum.

2.6.4 Existing products As expected, no existing taro chip products were identified in any of the retail store visits conducted (supermarket, C-store and Asian supermarkets). The closest potential substitute products found are displayed below, including retail price, size and packaging text.

Figure 3A Kettle Sweet Potato Chips

Kettle Sweet Potato Chips 100 g retailing for $1.99-3.29 Manufactured by The Kettle Chip Company, Arnotts. The packaging reads: • The authentic chip • Kettle Sweet Potato Chips combine the rich and enticing taste of real sweet potatoes with Kettle’s unique authentic cooked process • A truly mouth-watering chip unlike anything you’ve tasted before! • Slowly cooked in sunflower oil, they’re 100% cholesterol free! Plus we use only natural ingredients – no artificial colours, flavours, preservatives or MSG! 35.1 g of fat per 100 g.

Figure 4A Ajitas Vege Chips

Ajitas Vege Chips: 100 g retailing for $1.99-2.49 Manufactured by The Vege Chip Co. The packaging reads: • Manufactured in Australia from local and imported ingredients • Cholesterol and gluten free, cooked in sunflower oil • 40% less fat than most potato chips • The natural alternative, free from artificial colours, artificial flavours, wheat/gluten, preservatives, cholesterol, no added M.S.G • Light and crunchy and so delicious. Cassava is a slow-release energy food cooked in the finest sunflower oil. This oil is low in saturated fat and provides a good balance of essential polyunsaturates and Omega 9 monosaturates. 19.5 g of fat per 100 g.

Figure 5A Red Rock Deli - potato chips

Red Rock Deli: 100 g potato chips retailing for $1.49-2.49. Manufactured by The Smiths Snack food Company. • Deli-style potato chips • Low in saturated fats, no cholesterol • The Red Rock Deli Chip Company invites you to take a leisurely stroll through your local deli with our new range of deli inspired chips • Experience the aromas and flavours of fresh quality ingredients uniquely blended to form an array of exciting new taste sensations. 31.6 g of fat per 100 g.

2.7 Focus groups Consumer focus groups were conducted as a part of this project. Fourteen focus group participants were selected from those who had taken part in the consumer acceptance testing of the proposed taro chip as detailed in Section C of this report. Two focus groups were conducted in Brisbane in August 2003. Selection criteria for group 1 were participants: • or their close family members must not be employed in marketing or food/beverage manufacturing • must have eaten Kettle, Red Rock Deli, Pringles, Vege Chips or Byron Bay Chilli chips in the past six months • must be tertiary educated (including certificates and diplomas).

Selection criteria for group 2 were participants: • or their close family members must not be employed in marketing or food/beverage manufacturers • must have eaten Kettle, Red Rock Deli, Pringles, Vege Chips or Byron Bay Chilli chips in the past six months • must be non-tertiary educated. A professional facilitator was employed to conduct the focus groups. An explanation of the focus group process was made to all participants. The groups were asked a series of open-ended questions about brand awareness, product preferences, packaging and price sensitivity. Note: Comments for the two groups have been combined in most instances, as there were no major differences between the responses received. However, where responses did differ they have been highlighted. Types of salty snacks What type of salty snacks are you familiar with? Chips (potato) Chips (corn) Crackers (rice) Nuts Pretzels Savoury biscuits Both focus groups were familiar with a wide range of salty snack types. Chips (potato and corn) and rice crackers came to mind the most frequently. Consumption Which types of salty snacks identified here have you consumed within the past three months? Chips (potato) Chips (corn) Crackers Nuts Both groups had eaten a number of different types and brands of salty snacks within the past three months. Potato chips and corn chips were identified most often as the types of salty snack consumed. Branding Which brands are best? Sweet Chilli and Sour Cream – Red Rock Deli Chips CC’s Tasty Cheese Corn Chips Crackers (rice – Sakata) Nuts (cashew) Chips (potato – Red Rock Deli) Ajita’s Vege Chips Pringles

Flavour was nominated as the major reason why the group chose these products as the best salty snack. For example: ‘I like brands with unusual flavours like honey soy and chilli – they’re not boring.’ ‘The best snacks are those that go well with beer, like salted cashews.’ ‘Even though it may sound boring, I like the traditional, plain flavoured, lightly salted potato chips.’ ‘Pringles are the best. If I start, I can’t stop.’ ‘I like the uniformity of Pringles in the tube.’ ‘A brand with a wide range of flavours is important to me.’

Which brands are worst and why? Potato chips – lightly salted plain Corn chips – plain There was general consensus that plain types of potato and corn chips were the least liked type of salty snack. Plain or lightly salted chips were described as boring, needing flavour and tasteless. A number of participants indicated that they only purchased plain chips to use as a companion product for dips and salsas. Substitute products Which products have you purchased as a substitute for salty snacks? Why? Mini pizzas Popcorn Meatballs A range of hot and cold savoury snacks Both groups indicated they sometimes purchase hot savouries in lieu of salty snacks when entertaining guests at home. Purchase attributes When purchasing salty snacks, what influences your choice? Brand (2) Mood, occasion or intended usage (4) Taste/flavour (6) Pack size (3) Packaging Specials/price (12) Promos/advertising/toys (3) Nutrition Price was cited as the major influence on purchase decisions. A number of participants indicated price almost always had a bearing on the product purchased. Participants were able to quote current prices per pack for a range of popular salty snacks. For example: ‘I make up my mind in the aisle when I see them (salty snacks) there. I compare prices: $1.77 for 200 g.’ ‘I almost always buy cheaper generic brand chips if the kids have a party – they don’t know the difference.’ During discussions participants recited a number of jingles from advertising campaigns for a number of salty snacks.

It is also interesting to note that nutrition/low fat was only mentioned once as being an influence in purchase decisions. When asked why nutrition/fat wasn’t an issue, the following comments were made: ‘It depends on the occasion. If I’m entertaining guests I use the fat = flavour rule.’ ‘If I’m in the mood to treat myself, I’ll buy the ‘naughtiest’ snack I can.’ ‘I’m treating myself, it’s my ‘junk stuff’.’ ‘Flavour is more important.’ ‘I know it’s bad for me but I’m going to eat it anyway.’ ‘97% fat free, no flavour though.’ ‘I’m not eating chips everyday.’ ‘I know about the info (nutritional panel) on packs. I don’t read it though.’ ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as a healthy chip, I know they are bad for me but I don’t care.’ Frequency of purchase Respondents were asked to provide details of recent purchase types and volumes. Most indicated they purchased larger 200 g packs from supermarkets and smaller 50 g and 100 g packs from convenience stores and service stations. Most indicated they went grocery shopping once a week, but found it difficult to give details on how often they purchased from convenience stores. These comments parallel those of numerous other studies of the purchasing patterns of Australian consumers. For example: ‘One 200 g packet per month of potato chips or CCs. I buy crackers, 4-6 packs fortnight.’ ‘Chips, three 200 g packs per month.’ ‘Cashews, one large pack per month.’ ‘CC’s, one pack per week and chips, one pack per week.’ ‘Rice crackers, one pack per week.’ ‘One pack per week, 200 g.’ ‘I always have rice crackers in the cupboard. I buy one or two packs per week as well as a 50 g bag of Doritos.’ ‘200 g potato chips and 290 g corn chips per week.’ ‘Sakata, Snakata rice crackers, one large box per week’ ‘Two bags of Doritos, Kettle chips, large rice crackers per week.’ ‘Three packs of crackers, one large bag of Kettle chips, two tubes of Pringles, a large snack pack and four packs of corn chips.’ ‘A large pack of pretzels, two minute noodles and potato chips.’ ‘A big pack of cashew nuts and rice crackers.’

Premium products What features of a product would prompt you to pay a little more than similar types of products? Flavour/taste (5) ‘Tried and true’ brands Both groups found it difficult to respond to this question. Most went so far as to say that they could not answer. After some discussion, superior flavour was identified as one attribute/feature for which the respondents might be willing to pay more. For example: ‘I shouldn’t have to pay more!’ ‘Maybe a product that was acceptable for the whole family.’ ‘I can’t answer (that) question. I’m inclined to want to pay less and purchase generics.’ ‘Sweet potato (chips) might be something to treat myself.’ Packaging Both focus groups were presented with copies of packaging mock-ups. Participants were asked to identify the design that most appealed to them and to explain why. Designs one, four and seven attracted the eye of both groups. Design 1 was nominated as the most popular by both focus groups. It was described as: ‘Bright.’ ‘Eye-catching.’ ‘Tropical, fresh, sunny.’ ‘I like the yellow.’ ‘Colour is good, I like the squared lettering.’ ‘Great, I like the sun.’ ‘The yellow stands out more than the other colours, but there are already a lot of competing products coloured yellow.’ ‘I like designs one and four, but would prefer to see the Mexican style trim at the top and bottom of the packet removed.’

Design 1 Design 2 Design 3

Design 4 Design 5 Design 6

Design 7

Several participants commented they did not like the spiral/swirl on designs two and three. For example: ‘It has a liquid connotation, it makes me think of dairy products and cream.’ ‘Designs two and five lettering is far too cramped.’ ‘Designs two and five are too confusing and hard to read.’ Other comments: ‘I’m not sure about the name Tropo; for me it has a certain negative connotation.’ ‘I associate the term tropo with coconuts, mangos and tropical fruit juices… they look a little bit like juice cartons.’ ‘I have no idea what taro is. Maybe you could educate consumers with information about taro on the package.’ ‘I didn’t know the taro leaf looks like that.’ Branding by location Focus group participants were shown a packet of Byron Bay Chilli Co’s corn chips and asked to comment on the following names developed for the proposed taro chip: • Cairns Chip Company • Babinda Chip Company • Tropical Chip Company. Comments included: ‘I can’t see any value in promoting this product based on the specific location where it is produced.’ ‘I don’t have a close association with Cairns.’ ‘The Tropical Chip Company has more appeal than Cairns Chip Company.’ ‘The Snakata advertising campaign sticks in my mind. I don’t know what it means but it is catchy.’ ‘Promote them as a grown-up snack. These aren’t chippies for the kids.’ ‘Have an adult theme. Get rid of the term chips and use snacks or taros instead.’ ‘Location has no impact, it’s not relevant for me.’ Sea salt In an attempt to differentiate the proposed taro chip from the competition, the project proponents were keen to gauge the group’s reaction to using sea salt as an ingredient as opposed to iodised salt. Comments included: ‘I suppose anything more natural is an advantage.’ ‘It’s a yuppie thing, sea salt.’ ‘There are concerns from consumers about processed salt. People are worried about iodised.’ ‘Lightly salted sounds good, overall it’s not an issue for me.’ ‘Other additives in products are more of an issue than the salt itself.’

Package size The focus groups were asked to provide comment on preferred pack size for salty snacks: ‘Same as normal chips.’ ‘100 g in cars and 200 g for at home.’ ‘200 g because I’m buying for two people.’ ‘Needs to be relative to the competition; can’t be undersized in comparison.’ ‘200 g.’ ‘Match with Kettle chips.’ ‘200 g preferred size; eat and keep.’ Pricing Focus group participants were asked to provide comment on the pricing for the proposed taro chip product. ‘200 g pack – up to $3.’ ‘Match with Kettle.’ ‘Cheaper than competition to start with.’ ‘Similar to competition.’ ‘Would buy for party/special occasion.’ ‘It would be suicide if the product was launched dearer than existing Kettle chips.’ ‘Align with cost of corn chips.’ ‘Pitched at same price as potato chips.’ ‘It’s hard to say. There is so much variation and discounting between shops and supermarkets.’ ‘If you like them you’ll still buy them.’ ‘Kettle chips have come down in price to $2.’ ‘Sweet Potato is expensive, black packet is catchy, very nice.’ Comments on sample chips provided Three bowls of chips were provided for respondents to consume during the focus groups. They were taro chips, Pringles and Kettle chips. In both focus groups all of the taro chips were consumed. Approximately 30% of the Kettle chips were consumed and 50% of the Pringles. Comments made included: ‘The taro chip is appealing, looks different to conventional chips. Nice red flecks.’ ‘Taro looks appealing. Kettle very oily.’ ‘Doesn’t do anything for me.’ ‘It just tastes like a chip to me.’ ‘I still don’t know what taro tastes like.’ ‘It’s the visual that draws me to it.’ ‘It’s still a chip.’

Closing comments ‘Push visual appeal and versatility, snack and dip, bars, clubs, restaurants as an outlet.’ ‘The salt needs to be consistent on each chip. There also needs to be a variety of flavours.’ ‘Clear packaging, advertising snappy and catchy like the Sa-ka-ta advertisements,’ ‘Push the visual aspect, Market the chip’s versatility. I need information on taro: what is it?’ ‘What is the fat and nutritional content?’ ‘Visible product, clear window.’ ‘Consider a variety of non-traditional flavours – not BBQ, salt and vinegar, etc.’ ‘This product needs to be price competitive.’ ‘Just like sweet potato, tastes just like sweet potato when you roast.’ ‘I prefer taro roasted than as a chip.’ ‘Flavour is bland; it needs to be improved.’ ‘Push taro chips as an adult snack.’ ‘Promote Australian owned.’ ‘Providing samples in supermarkets would help product launch.’ ‘Can the shape be changed? These chips look too much like corn chips.’ ‘Price cannot be any more than 25% above existing chips.’ ‘Advertising campaign is really important for distribution – delis, supermarket, pubs, etc.’ ‘Pitch towards adults with a MA or R rating.’ ‘Taste testings, give-aways and demos are very important in promotion/initial launch.’ ‘Can these be used as a base for nachos?’ ‘Can these chips be used as a garnish or as a side dish?’ ‘Chips come with every meal, cheap and easy.’ ‘Until Red Rock Deli chips were launched, there weren’t any real premium chips on the market. There are Emporio biscuits and Temptation Ice Creams.’

2.8 Focus group summary Some common themes that emerged from focus group participants were:

• The price of the proposed taro chip should be aligned closely with the competition.

• Most focus group participants thought the taro chip was appealing to both the eye and the taste buds.

• Very few participants knew what taro was.

• Most indicated an extensive consumer education and awareness campaign was needed if the proposed product was to have any chance of success.

3. Section B - Financial analysis

Disclaimer: The following economic analysis is only a partial budget on the proposed chip product. The spreadsheet does not include capital costs/set-up figures.

3.1 Objective • Complete an economic feasibility of commercial production of taro chips.

3.2 Financial analysis The assumptions used within this analysis were based on the work carried out for a commercial client. The analysis was based on a whole budget approach, where a range of raw products were utilised for chip production.

It was realised early within the analysis that solely basing the business on a single product line (taro) would be difficult due to the seasonality of supply and therefore, price sensitivity. This sensitivity is a critical factor in determining the viability of the whole cash flow approach. General Assumptions Income Product sales Price ($/bag) Sales volume/ month 100 g bag $1.74 8 000 200 g bag $2.50 6 000 Average price ($/kg) $14.46/kg 2 000 kg The following assumptions have been made: • assume all product is sold each month • variable and fixed costs have been based on the client’s figures • assume no capital cost • cost of production analysis has been based on client figures • analysis is based on a steady state level of 2 000 kg/month processed product • the scenario analysis is based on an earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) profit.

3.2.1 Cost of production analysis The raw product purchase price of $2.50/kg was used as a benchmark as the production and marketing analysis indicated this was the lowest average fresh market price received over a year. As a starting point, 2 000 kg/month of processed product was used, as it would gain initial economies of size and generate sufficient volumes to target the local market. The analysis would indicate that purchasing raw product at $2.50/kg would appear to be profitable. However, using the whole budget approach, this level of purchasing does not cover all the commercial fixed costs. Therefore it is unviable at this level of production.

The analysis indicated that when the raw material costs exceeded $3.80/kg, sales revenues would not meet variable costs. Therefore, it would be unprofitable to purchase raw product at this level.

3.3 Scenario analysis Analysis was conducted at two raw product purchase price levels ($2.50/kg and $1.50/kg). This analysis takes into account current sales, variable and fixed costs of running a business at an EBIT level (excluding capital/set-up costs of plant and equipment). Scenario 1 ($2.50/kg) and Scenario 2 ($1.50/kg) compare these two purchasing policies.

3.3.1 Scenario 1 ($2.50/kg) At a $2.50 price, the break-even point equates to 8 400 kg ($989 net profit) of raw product required to be processed per month. From a business point of view, production would have to be at least double (16 800kg/month or a profit of $11 478/month) to gain a reasonable return on the investment and give the ability of the business to service capital (borrowing). This is assuming that the current cost structure would be adequate to meet this increased level of production. As production increases, it will reach a point where further capital equipment will be needed to handle this throughput. This will be coupled with higher levels of management, marketing effort and fixed costs. This action can place severe cash flow constraints on the business if there are not existing cash reserves or retained capital to cover the cash fall shortfalls. Production costs for producing taro chips per month

Data table

Purchase price per raw product $ 2.50

Raw product ratio (3:1) 3

Raw product (kg) 6 000

Processed chips (kg) 2 000

Percentage of 75 g bags 0% - <= bags

Percentage of 100 g bags 40% 8 000 <= bags

Percentage of 150 g bags 0% - <= bags

Percentage of 200 g bags 60% 6 000 <= bags

Number of months 1

Total bags for sale => 14 000

Sales (wholesale prices)

Bag numbers per year

Price per bag ($/75 g) 1.20 - <= $ sales

Price per bag ($/100 g) 1.74 13 920 <= $ sales

Price per bag ($/150 g) 2.00 - <= $ sales

Price per bag ($/200 g) 2.50 15 000 <= $ sales

Total sales => $ 28 920

$/kg chips Unit Unit price Total

Cost of raw products

Chips production (kg) (ratio 3:1) 2 000 7.50 Fresh taro in kg 6 000 $ 2.50 $ 15 000 0.48 Oil in litre 600 $ 1.60 $ 960 0.01 Salt in kg 40 $ 0.60 $ 24 7.99 Total raw product $ 15 984

Processing

Labour hours 0.15 Collecting (driver and ute) (hr) 1 10 $ 30 $ 300 0.27 Washing/peeling (rough) (hr) 1 30 $ 18 $ 540 0.27 Peeling (finish) and slicing (hr) 1 30 $ 18 $ 540 0.27 Cooking and drying (hr) 1 30 $ 18 $ 540 0.00 Sales costs in labour hours (hr) 1 $ - 0.16 Packing, handling, loading (hr) 1 18 $ 18 $ 324 0.42 Distribution (salesperson and van) (hr) 1 28 $ 30 $ 840 1.54 Total labour $ 3 084

9.53 Total production costs $ 19 068

Cost of packaging 0.00 Bags 75 g - $ 0.08 $ - 0.40 Bag 100 g 8 000.00 $ 0.10 $ 800 0.00 Bag 150 g - $ 0.12 $ - 0.45 Bag 200 g 6 000.00 $ 0.15 $ 900 0.00 Bag xxx g $ - $ - 0.33 Carton boxes 733 $ 0.90 $ 660 1.18 Total packaging $ 2 360

Total costs ($/kg) $ 10.71 =>

Total costs ($) => $ 21 428

Surplus/deficit => $ 7 492

3.3.2 Analysis per month for taro at a raw material purchase price of $2.50/kg Assumptions: • Variable cost: $10.71/kg • Chips: 2 000kg/month • Average unit sales price: $14.46/kg

Raw product (kg/month) kg/month Net revenue Fixed cost Variable cost Total cost Total profit 6 000 2 000 $28 920 $9 500 $21 428 $30 928 -$2 008 7 200 2 400 $34 704 $9 500 $25 714 $35 214 -$510 8 400 2 800 $40 488 $9 500 $29 999 $39 499 $989 9 600 3 200 $46 272 $9 500 $34 285 $43 785 $2 487 10 800 3 600 $52 056 $9 500 $38 570 $48 070 $3 986 12 000 4 000 $57 840 $9 500 $42 856 $52 356 $5 484 13 200 4 400 $63 624 $9 500 $47 142 $56 642 $6 982 14 400 4 800 $69 408 $9 500 $51 427 $60 927 $8 481 15 600 5 200 $75 192 $9 500 $55 713 $65 213 $9 979 16 800 5 600 $80 976 $9 500 $59 998 $69 498 $11 478 18 000 6 000 $86 760 $9 500 $64 284 $73 784 $12 976 19 200 6 400 $92 544 $9 500 $68 570 $78 070 $14 474 20 400 6 800 $98 328 $9 500 $72 855 $82 355 $15 973 21 600 7 200 $104 112 $9 500 $77 141 $86 641 $17 471 22 800 7 600 $109 896 $9 500 $81 426 $90 926 $18 970 24 000 8 000 $115 680 $9 500 $85 712 $95 212 $20 468 25 200 8 400 $121 464 $9 500 $89 998 $99 498 $21 966

Notes • Based on EBIT • Based on raw product purchase as a $/kg processed product • Average price taken for sales mix • No debt included

3.3.3 Scenario 2 ($1.50/kg) A $1.50/kg purchase price would appear to be profitable at a processing level of 6 000kg/month ($3 992 net profit) of raw product. A similar profit to Scenario 1 can be achieved with a processing level of 9 600 kg/month (40% lower than figures shown in Scenario 1). Therefore, this scenario indicates less of a business risk at this lower level of processing. An area that could be further investigated is market acceptance of a smaller package size. This action would spread the purchase price of raw product and fixed costs over a larger number of product sales, therefore, potentially increasing the profit margin. (This is assuming that there is no real extra cost to packaging and marketing.) In summary, the cost of the raw product is the major factor in the production costs. The analysis would indicate that the raw product over $2.50/kg places a high burden of cash flow risk on the business and possible higher levels of operational capital to cover the any shortfalls. Raw product

levels of below $1.50/kg would indicate viable surpluses are achievable. This is assuming that the cost of capital was not prohibitive in both cases.

Production costs for producing taro chips per month Data table Purchase price per raw product $1.50 Raw product (ratio 3:1) 3 Raw product (kg) 6 000 Processed chips (kg) 2 000

Percentage of 75 g bags 0% - <= bags

Percentage of 100 g bags 40% 8 000 <= bags Percentage of 150 g bags 0% - <= bags Percentage of 200 g bags 60% 6 000 <= bags Number of months 1 Total bags for sale => 14 000 Sales (wholesale prices) Bag numbers per year Price per bag ($/75 g) 1.20 - <= $ sales Price per bag ($/100 g) 1.74 13 920 <= $ sales Price per bag ($/150 g) 2.00 - <= $ sales Price per bag ($/200 g) 2.50 15 000 <= $ sales Total sales => $ 28 920

Unit Unit price Total $/kg chips

Cost of raw products Chips Production (kg) (ratio 3:1) 2 000 Fresh taro in kg 6 000 $ 1.50 $ 9 000 4.50 Oil in litre 600 $ 1.60 $ 960 0.48 Salt in kg 40 $ 0.60 $ 24 0.01

Total raw product $ 9 984 4.99

Processing Labour hours Collecting (driver and ute) (hr) 1 10 $ 30 $ 300 0.15 Washing/peeling (rough) (hr) 1 30 $ 18 $ 540 0.27 Peeling (finish) and slicing (hr) 1 30 $ 18 $ 540 0.27 Cooking and drying (hr) 1 30 $ 18 $ 540 0.27 Sales costs in hour (hr) 1 $ - 0.00 Packing, handling, loading (hr) 1 18 $ 18 $ 324 0.16 Distribution (salesperson and van) (hr) 1 28 $ 30 $ 840 0.42

Total labour $ 3 084 1.54

Total production costs $ 13 068 6.53

Cost of packaging Bags 75 g - $ 0.08 $ - 0.00 Bag 100 g 8 000 $ 0.10 $ 800 0.40 Bag 150 g - $ 0.12 $ - 0.00 Bag 200 g 6 000 $ 0.15 $ 900 0.45 Bag xxx g $ - $ - 0.00 Carton boxes 733 $ 0.90 $ 660 0.33

Total packaging $ 2 360 1.18

Total costs ($/kg) => $ 7.71

Total costs ($) => $ 15 428

Surplus/deficit => $ 13 492

3.3.4 Analysis per month for taro at a raw material purchase price of $1.50/kg Assumptions are: • Variable cost ($/kg): $7.71 • Chips (kg/month): 2 000 • Average unit sales price ($/kg): $14.46

Raw product (kg/month) kg/month Net revenue Fixed cost Variable cost Total cost Total profit 6 000 2 000 $28 920 $9 500 $15 428 $24 928 $3 992 7 200 2 400 $34 704 $9 500 $18 514 $28 014 $6 690 8 400 2 800 $40 488 $9 500 $21 599 $31 099 $9 389 9 600 3 200 $46 272 $9 500 $24 685 $34 185 $12 087 10 800 3 600 $52 056 $9 500 $27 770 $37 270 $14 786 12 000 4 000 $57 840 $9 500 $30 856 $40 356 $17 484 13 200 4 400 $63 624 $9 500 $33 942 $43 442 $20 182 14 400 4 800 $69 408 $9 500 $37 027 $46 527 $22 881 15 600 5 200 $75 192 $9 500 $40 113 $49 613 $25 579 16 800 5 600 $80 976 $9 500 $43 198 $52 698 $28 278 18 000 6 000 $86 760 $9 500 $46 284 $55 784 $30 976 19 200 6 400 $92 544 $9 500 $49 370 $58 870 $33 674 20 400 6 800 $98 328 $9 500 $52 455 $61 955 $36 373 21 600 7 200 $104 112 $9 500 $55 541 $65 041 $39 071 22 800 7 600 $109 896 $9 500 $58 626 $68 126 $41 770 24 000 8 000 $115 680 $9 500 $61 712 $71 212 $44 468 25 200 8 400 $121 464 $9 500 $64 798 $74 298 $47 166 Notes • Based on EBIT • Based on raw product purchase as a $/kg processed product • Average price taken for sales mix • No debt included.

3.4 Conclusion The analyses indicates that, given grower requirements of $2.50/kg for the raw product supplied to the factory, a taro chip processing business would not be profitable at this stage. If mechanisation can reduce the farm-gate price of processing taro to below $1.50/kg, commercialisation of the product could be reconsidered.

4. Section C - Processing/technical requirements

4.1 Objectives • To establish cooking parameters that would produce a taro chip acceptable to consumers from the target market. These parameters include chip thickness, oil type, oil temperature, cooking time and salt addition rate. • To examine basic compositional indicators of the Taro corm to determine how these might affect final Taro chip quality. • To evaluate the impact of storage conditions on the quality of the final chip. • To determine approximate yields to enable an effective economic evaluation of the product. • To determine the approximate shelf life of the Taro Chips. • To determine the nutrition value of the Taro Chips for the purpose of fulfilling labelling requirements.

4.2 Methodology

Transportation and storage Taro corms were harvested in the Babinda/Innisfail area and transported by road to Brisbane in 17 kg cartons. There was no temperature control during transportation. The taro corms arrived in Brisbane approximately five days after harvest. Upon arrival in Brisbane, the cartons were stored at 10°C at the Agency for Food and Fibre Science, Food Technology premises, until processing.

Chip processing The taro corms were peeled by hand using a domestic potato peeler. The corms were then sliced using a ham/meat slicer. Due to the large size of the corms, most slices were cut into quarters using a domestic kitchen knife. After slicing, the raw taro slices were fried in a Luke Sterlec deep fryer with a 6 kg capacity. Chips were then drained for 10 seconds before being added to a tumbler for salt to be added. The tumbler had been constructed from a food grade plastic bucket and drill head and included baffles on the wall of the bucket to facilitate the movement of the salt. Chip analysis The following methods were used for the various analyses conducted on the taro chips. Ash AOAC 2000. 940.26 Carbohydrates By difference Dietary fibre BRI F5 Energy FSANZ Food Standards, code standard 1.2.8 Fat Acid hydrolysis followed by Mojennier extraction Free fatty acid Deeth H.C., Fitz-Gerald C.H. and Wood A.F. 1979. Aust. J. Dairy Technol. vol.34, pp.146-149

Moisture AOAC 2000. 920.151 Peroxide value AOAC 2000. 965.33 Polyphenaloxidase Method from Brekke, J.E. et al. 1975. Mango: Processed Product, US Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. ARSW-23 Protein AOAC 2000. 920.152 Saturated fat ISO 5508 Sodium Tested at an external laboratory using AOAC 2000. 966.16 Starch Food Technology in Australia 1980. vol.32 pp.198 Sugars HPLC – AOAC (2000) 982.14 Total sugars AOAC (2000) 982.14

4.3 Evaluating slice thickness and cooking time Method The taro used for Trial 1 was received in Brisbane on 14 November 2002 from North Queensland (Batch 1) and was approximately nine months old. A range of slice thicknesses were cut from the peeled taro corms, including 2.0, 1.5, 1.2 and 1.0mm. The slices were then fried in sunflower oil at 185-190°C for times varying between 45 and 90 seconds. The chips were stirred with a long- handled spoon during frying, to prevent the chips sticking together. Results Taro with a slice thickness of 2.0 or 1.5mm produced uneven colour across the taro slice even when cooked for up to 90 seconds. The taro slices showed burning around the edges while being undercooked in the centre of the taro chip. The 1.2 and 1.0mm slice thickness produced good, even colour on the chip with a shorter cooking time of 60 seconds. Conclusions A slice thickness of between 1.0 and 1.2mm cooked for 60 seconds at 180-185°C produced chips with the most uniform colour and texture. It is essential to stir the taro chips during the initial 20 seconds of frying to prevent the chips from sticking together.

4.4 Comparison of chip quality produced from nine and 12- month-old taro Method Batch 2 of the taro arrived in Brisbane on 11 December 2003. This taro was approximately 12 months old. Some preliminary frying trials were conducted based on the findings of Trial 1. Results The trials conducted with the 12-month-old taro showed considerable variation of colour and texture within the chips, with most chips appearing too brown and overcooked compared to the nine-month- old taro used in Trial 1. Figure 1C shows the typical appearance of the 12-month-old taro chips.

Figure 1C Appearance of taro chips prepared from 12-month-old taro corms. Pre-treatment To overcome the inferior quality of the 12-month-old taro for the manufacture of chips, several pre- treatments of the raw taro slices were investigated. Methods Each pre-treatment trial used taro sliced at 1.0-1.2 mm and fried in sunflower oil for 60 seconds at 180-185°C. The pre-treatments prior to frying included: • water blanching • ascorbic acid dip • preservative dip. The blanching trial dipped the taro slices in hot water at 90°C for 30 seconds, one minute, two minutes, three minutes and four minutes. The acid dip consisted of 280ppm of ascorbic acid into which the sliced taro was dipped for a period of 15 and 30 minutes. The preservative dip used a solution of sodium metabisulphite at 228ppm and was dipped for 15 and 30 minutes. Results The taro chips produced using both the acid and preservative pre-treatments were of unacceptable quality, with inconsistent colour and texture. Figure 2C demonstrates the blanching pre-treatment trial which showed a substantial improvement on the overall colour of the taro chips when compared to both the acid and preservative dips. A blanching time of 3-5 minutes in water at 90°C produced a chip with good, consistent colour. Although effective against the browning of the taro chips when fried, the chips produced after the blanching pre-treatment did not have as crisp a texture as those chips produced without blanching in Trial 1.

Figure 2C Effect of blanching treatment on appearance of taro chips made from 12-month-old corms. The excessive browning of the untreated taro may possibly be caused by enzymic browning common in many fruit and vegetables. This enzymic browning is due to the action of polyphenoloxidase enzyme on the phenolic compounds present in the corm tissue. The raw taro was tested for the presence of polyphenaloxidase and produced a positive result. Taro slices which had been blanched for 3-5 minutes showed a negative result to enzyme activity. The enzymatic oxidation of the phenolic compounds in the taro leads to the formation of undesirable brown pigments when the taro is fried. The blanching process inactivates these enzymes present in the taro. Conclusions The 12-month-old taro used in Trial 2 produced significantly lower quality chips when compared to the chips produced from Trial 1 using nine-month-old taro. Trial 2 proved the acceptability of the taro chip quality can be improved by the use of a pre-treatment stage prior to frying. Water blanching of the taro slices at 90°c for 3-5min proved to be the most effective treatment. Trial 2 showed the effect the age of the taro has on the acceptability of the finished chip, with the nine- month-old taro producing a superior quality chip without the need for any pre-treatment stage.

4.5 Selection of frying oil Methods Trial 3 investigated the use of three different frying oils for manufacturing taro chips. The oils were supplied by Unilever Australia. These were: • Sunflower oil (trade name: Sunoil) • Palm oil (trade name: Palmolein) • Cottonseed oil (trade name: Calvay). All of the oils were trialed with taro slices from both the top and the middle section of the corm (see Figure 3C). All trials used taro sliced at 1.0mm and cooked for 60 seconds at 185-190°C. Results The Palmolein produced an excellent, even-coloured chip with a very crunchy texture. The Palmolein flavour was quite strong and left an unacceptable oily aftertaste when consumed (see Figure 3C). The cottonseed oil produced excellent, even-coloured chips, which had a clean, non-oily flavour. The flavour of the taro was more apparent using this oil (see Figure 4C). The Sunoil produced taro chips with an acceptable colour with slight darkening around the edges. The chips appeared to curl more when cooked and had a thinner, more fragile texture. The flavour of the

Sunoil was clean and non-oily (see Figure 5C). Figure 6C demonstrates the sections of the taro corm designated as the top and middle.

Figure 3C Taro chips produced using palm oil.

Figure 4C Taro chips produced using cottonseed oil.

Figure 5C Taro chips produced using sunflower oil.

Figure 6C Sections of taro corm designated as middle and top sections. During trials to investigate the most appropriate frying oil, it was noted the top and middle sections of the taro produced different quality taro chips. All chips produced using the top section of the taro were of lower quality then those produced from the middle section of the taro (see Figures 3C-5C). Two out of the three oils produced chips from the top of the taro corm that were generally significantly darker in colour and stronger in oil flavour. The cottonseed oil showed the least colour variation between the top and the middle of the taro. Conclusions Trial 3 showed cottonseed oil to be the most suitable for the production of taro chips. The chips produced had good colour, texture and flavour.

4.6 Modification of slice thickness Prototypes of the taro chips from Trial 3 were provided to the North Queensland Taro Growers for evaluation. The chips supplied were between 0.95mm and 1.2mm thick. Feedback was that these chips were considered too thin. Methods The taro used for Trial 4 was received in Brisbane on the 3 February 2003 and was approximately nine months old. The slices were fried in cottonseed oil at 185-187°C for 60 seconds. Slice thickness was adjusted by altering the setting on the ham slicer. Results Slices with an average thickness of 1.0-1.1 mm pre-cook were cut from the peeled taro corms. This produced chips with a thickness in the range of 0.65mm-1.05mm. The slicer setting was increased from 2.25 to 2.5 to increase the thickness of the chips. This resulted in raw slices of 1.3mm-1.4mm, which produced finished chips with a thickness range of 0.85mm- 1.15mm. A slicer setting of 2.75 produced raw slices 1.5-1.75 mm thick. Conclusions Samples of the 1.3-1.4mm (raw) and 1.5-1.75 mm (raw) were submitted to the North Queensland Taro Growers. The thickness of these chips was approved.

4.7 Influence of corm section on quality of chips It was identified the appearance of the taro chips differs according to the section of corm used. Further investigation was undertaken.

Batch 4 methods Samples of taro from the top and the middle of three separate corms from Batch 4 were analysed for sugars, starch and moisture. Photographs of taro chips produced from the selected analysis points are included in Figure 7C. Slices from the top and middle sections of each corm were fried into chips using cottonseed oil at 185-190°C for 60 seconds. A final chip thickness of 0.85mm-1.15mm was used for these trials. Batch 4 results – appearance Generally, the taro chips from the top of the corm were darker and many displayed a brown ring around the perimeter of the chip. The chips produced from the middle of the corms were generally of a lighter, more even, golden colour (Figures 8C-10C).

Figure 7C Appearance of taro chips corresponding to analysis points in Table 1C. Batch 4 results – analytical The results of the analytical analysis are detailed in below: Table 1C Comparison of moisture, sugars and starch content from top and middle of taro corms from Batch 4 Sample Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Total Reducing Starch % g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g sugar sugars g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g A Top 71.8 0.3 0.4 <0.1 0.7 0.7 15.1 A Middle 83.9 1.1 1.2 <0.1 2.3 2.3 7.5 B Top 73.7 0.9 0.8 <0.1 1.7 1.7 12.8 B Middle 63.7 0.3 0.4 <0.1 0.7 0.7 24.1 C Top 68.3 0.6 0.7 <0.1 1.3 1.3 18.6 C Middle 67.9 0.5 0.6 <0.1 1.1 1.1 19.9 The results from the middle section of corm A are unusual and are likely to be from laboratory or sampling errors. If these results are disregarded, the average results display the following trends: • The top section of the taro has a higher moisture content – on average 5.5% higher than the middle section.

• The top section of the taro has a higher total sugar and reducing sugar content – on average 0.3% higher than the middle section. • The top section of the taro has a lower starch content – on average 6.5% lower than the middle section.

Figure 8C Appearance of taro chips from bottom of taro corm from Batch 4.

Figure 9C Appearance of taro chips from middle of taro corm from Batch 4.

Figure 10C Appearance of taro chips from top of taro corm from Batch 4.

Batch 5 methods The taro used for Trial 5 was received in Brisbane on 27 February and was approximately nine months old. In order to further investigate the properties of taro from different sections of the corm, samples of taro from the top and the middle of three separate corms (Samples G, H and I) from Batch 5 were analysed for sugars, starch and moisture. The remainder of these corms was processed into chips. To gain a closer indication of the variation in chip colour from different sections of the corm, a number of samples of sliced taro were taken from points ranging from the top to the root tip, of three separate taro corms (Samples D, E and F). Slices from the corm were fried into chips using cottonseed oil at 185-190°C for 60 seconds. A final chip thickness of 0.85mm-1.15mm was used for these trials. Batch 5 results – appearance The general trend observed regarding fried chip colour was the taro chips from the top and tip of the corm were darker, although not necessarily unacceptable. The chips produced from the middle of the corms were again generally of a lighter, more even golden colour (see Figures 11C-13C).

Figure 11C Appearance of chips produced from various parts of the same taro corm (Sample D).

Figure 12C Appearance of chips produced from various parts of the same taro corm (Sample E).

Figure 13C Appearance of chips produced from various parts of the same taro corm (Sample F). Taro slices were obtained from the top and middle of three further taro corms (samples G, H and I), and fried into chips using the parameters outlined previously. Again it was observed that the chips from the top of the corm were darker, though not unacceptable (Figure 14C).

Figure 14C Comparison of appearance of chips produced from middle and top section of three different taro corms (samples G, H and I). Batch 5 results – analytical The results of the chemical analysis of samples from Batch 5 are detailed in Table 2C. Table 2C Comparison of moisture, sugars and starch content from top and middle of three different taro corms from Batch 5. Sample Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Total Reducing Starch % g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g sugars sugars g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g G Top 68.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.9 19.5 G Middle 67.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.4 0.5 25.1 H Top 70.8 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.3 18.6 H Middle 68.6 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.5 0.5 20.6 I Top 71.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.7 20.2 I Middle 65.5 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.5 26.4 Average top 70.3 0.25 0.35 0.5 1.2 0.6 19.4 Average 67.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.4 0.5 24.0 middle

The average results from Batch 5 displayed the following trends: • The top section of the taro has a higher moisture content – on average 3.3% higher than the middle section. • The top section of the taro has a lower total sugar content – on average 0.2% lower than the middle section. • The top section of the taro has a higher reducing sugar content – on average 0.1% higher than the middle section. • The top section of the taro has a lower starch content – on average 4.6% lower than the middle section. Conclusions Overall, chips produced from the top of the taro corm were a darker colour than chips produced from the middle of the corm. This did not, however, necessarily mean all of the chips from the top of the corms were unacceptable. Analysis of the corms showed the top of the corm tends to have a higher moisture content than the middle of the corm (an average of 4.4% higher from all results), a higher reducing sugar content than the middle of the corm (an average of 0.15% higher) and a lower starch content than the middle of the corm (an average of 5.6% lower).

4.8 Evaluation of storage conditions of corms on taro chip quality Methods The taro used for Trial 6 was received in Brisbane on 17 March 2003 and was approximately nine months old. Initial assessment of moisture content, sugar profile and starch content was conducted on the middle and top section of two randomly selected corms. The rest of the corm was fried into chips according to the cooking regime outlined in previous batches. The remaining intact corms were stored at temperatures of 4°C and 10°C over two weeks. At week 1 and week 2, samples from the middle and top of two corms from each storage temperature were analysed for moisture content, sugar profile and starch content, with the rest of each corm being used to produce chips. Results – appearance Figure 15C shows that the appearance of the two corms, on arrival in Brisbane, was very similar. Figures 16C and 17C shows, apart from Sample M, which had dark rings around chips from the middle of the corm, there was no discernible difference in appearance between the initial samples and chips produced from corms after one week’s storage at either 4°C or 10°C. Figures 18C and 19C show, after two weeks’ storage at 4°C and 10°C, dark rims appear around the chips at either end of the corm. Chips produced from the middle of corm maintain an acceptable appearance. All chips produced during the course of the storage trial had an acceptable eating quality.

Figure 15C Chips made from Batch 6 taro on arrival in Brisbane (samples J and K).

Figure 16C Chips made from Batch 6 taro corms after one week’s storage at 10°C (samples L and M).

Figure 17C Chips made from Batch 6 taro after one week of storage at 4°C (samples N and O).

Figure 18C Chips made from Batch 6 taro after two weeks’ storage at 10°C (samples P and Q).

Figure 19C Chips made from Batch 6 taro after two weeks’ storage at 4°C (samples R and S). Results – analytical Table 3C shows the average results of the moisture, total sugar, reducing sugar and starch content from the two corms. A table detailing all of the analytical results, including breakdown of fructose, glucose, sucrose and maltose, is included in Appendix 1.

Table 3C Average analytical results of taro corms after initial, one and two weeks of storage at 4°C and 10°C. Sample Storage Storage Moisture Total sugars Reducing Starch temperature time (%) (g/100 g) sugars (g/100 g) (g/100 g) Tops Initial 73.4 0.4 0.3 14.4 Middles 66.7 0.5 0.45 18.45 Tops 10°C One week 72.0 0.75 0.55 15.4 Middles 66.1 1.0 0.8 18.9 Tops 4°C One week 74.6 0.75 0.6 14.1 Middles 66.6 0.8 0.7 19.75 Tops 10°C Two weeks 67.45 0.8 0.65 9.4 Middles 66.45 0.85 0.6 12.7 Tops 4°C Two weeks 70.6 1.25 0.65 7.15 Middles 67.5 0.6 0.5 12.4

Figure 20C and 21C display the average changes in total solids content and starch content over the two-week trial for the taro tops and taro middles.

Figure 20C Total solids and starch content of taro corm tops over two weeks of refrigerated storage.

25 4C sample total solids 4C sample starch content 20 % 10C sample total solids 10C starch content 15

0 0 weeks 1 week 2 weeks Time

Figure 21C Total solids and starch content of taro corm middles over two weeks of refrigerated storage.

25 4C sample total solids 4C sample starch content

% 20 10C sample total solids 10C starch content 15

0 0 weeks 1 week 2 weeks Time

Figure 22C and 23C display the average changes in total sugar and reducing sugar content over the two-week trial for the taro tops and taro middles.

Figure 22C Reducing sugar and total sugar content of taro corm tops over two weeks of refrigerated storage.

1.4

1.2

4C sample total sugars 0.8 10C total sugars

% 4C sample Reducing sugars 0.6 10C sample reducing sugars

0.4

0.2

0 0 weeks 1 week 2 weeks Time

Figure 23C Reducing sugar and total sugar content of taro corm middles over two weeks of refrigerated storage.

1.4

1.2

4C sample total sugars 0.8 10C total sugars % 4C sample Reducing sugars 0.6 10C sample reducing sugars

0.4

0.2

0 0 weeks 1 week 2 weeks Time

Moisture content The analytical results show there was little change in the moisture content or total solids content from week 0 to week 1 for either the taro corm tops or middles. The taro tops showed a decrease in moisture content between week 1 and 2, with a reduction of 3.8% compared to initial results for the 4°C samples and an 8% reduction for the 10°C samples. The taro middles showed little change in moisture content/total solids content between weeks 1 and 2. Starch content There was little change in the starch content from week 0 to week 1 for either the taro corm tops or middles. A decrease in starch content was noted between weeks 1 and 2. The tops showed a reduction of 50% compared to the initial samples for the 4°C product and 35% for the 10°C product. The middles showed a reduction of 33% compared to the initial samples for the 4°C product and 31% for the 10°C product. Total sugar content of taro tops There was an increase in the total sugar content for the taro corm tops over the two weeks of the storage trial. The taro tops showed an increase in total sugar content between week 1 and 2, with an increase of 87% compared to initial results for the 4°C and 10°C samples. By week 2, the total sugar content of the 4°C samples had increased by 212% compared to initial results and the 10°C samples had increased by 100% compared to initial results. Reducing sugar content of taro tops The increase in total sugar content corresponded with an increase in reducing sugar content for the taro corm tops over the two weeks of the storage trial. The taro tops showed an increase in reducing sugar content between week 1 and 2, with an increase of 100% compared to initial results for the 4°C samples and 83% for the 10°C samples. By week 2, the reducing sugar content had increased by 115% compared to initial results for the 4°C and the 10°C samples. Total sugar content of taro middles There was an increase in the total sugar content for the taro corm middles over the two weeks of the storage trial. The taro middles showed an increase in total sugar content between week 0 and 1, with an increase of 60% and 100% compared to initial results for the 4°C and 10°C samples, respectively. By week 2, the total sugar content of the samples had decreased from week 1 levels. The 4°C samples had increased by 20% compared to initial results and the 10°C samples had increased by 70% compared to initial results. Reducing sugar content of taro middles The reducing sugar content of the taro corm middles corresponded with the total sugar content. The taro middles showed an increase in reducing sugar content between week 0 and 1, with an increase of 55% and 78% compared to initial results for the 4°C and 10°C samples. By week 2, the total sugar content of the samples had decreased from week 1 levels. The 4°C samples had increased by only 11% compared to initial results and the 10°C samples had increased by 33% compared to initial results. Conclusions The results of this storage trial show taro corms can be stored for one week at either 4°C or 10°C without any substantial loss in taro chip quality. Storage for two weeks resulted in undesirable browning in some of the chips produced from these batches. The analytical results showed there was less change in the key parameters of the taro stored at 10°C than occurred in the taro stored at 4°C.

4.9 Salt addition Methods A trial to gain an indication of a suitable rate of salt addition to taro chips was conducted using the following procedure: • Cook chips at 185ºC for 60 seconds • Allow the chips to drain excess oil for 60 seconds in the cooking basket • Add the hot chips to the plastic tumbler and add the required amount of salt • Allow to tumble for three minutes • Remove chips from tumbler. The salt addition rates are quoted per cooked chips. The amount of salt to be added was calculated by weighing the raw taro slices and assuming a 40% yield of cooked chips. Trials were conducted to determine the optimal level of salt addition. Addition rates of 3-10% salt were trialed. Results Addition rates of 5% and 7% were preferred by the North Queensland Taro Growers’ representative and product development technologists. It was decided both these levels would be tested with consumers during the consumer acceptance testing. Sodium testing was conducted on 21 August on chips with 7% salt addition to the final chip weight. A result of 251mg of sodium per 100g of chips was recorded. This equates to approximately 0.6% salt in the final product. Conclusions The optimal salt addition rates are between 5% and 7% of the final chip weight. It should be noted much of this salt is not absorbed during the tumbling process. This is confirmed by the sodium analysis of the final chip. This analysis, will, however be repeated in conjunction with the storage trial assessment to confirm its validity.

4.10 Influence of using inferior quality taro corms on taro chip quality Methods A meeting between the president of the North Queensland Taro Growers and the project team was held on 29 April 2003. At this meeting it was decided taro corms identified by growers as ‘stressed’ should be assessed for final chip quality to determine what type of raw material produces a sub- quality chip. It was anticipated this information could be used to screen raw material for a taro chip manufacturing plant. Batch 7 arrived in Brisbane on 10 April 2003. This product was identified by the grower, Philippe Petiniaud, as being of an inferior quality. The taro corms were analysed for moisture content, sugar profile and starch content. Chips were produced from this taro according to the cooking regime outlined in previous steps. Batch 8 arrived in Brisbane on 8 May 2003 and was identified by Mr Petiniaud as being pest damaged. The grower also commented the ‘meat’ of the taro was good. Six samples of off-cuts were selected as representative of the box. These were photographed before the chips were prepared. Two

of the samples (samples 2 and 4) were also analysed for moisture content, sugar profile and starch content. Batch 9 arrived in Brisbane on 12 May 2003. This taro was supplied by a conventional grower, Perry Dass. Two samples were randomly selected for analysis of moisture content, sugar profile and starch content. Chips were prepared and photographed from these samples. Batch 10 arrived in Brisbane on 2 June 2003. Mr Petiniaud again supplied this taro, and described it as being of inferior quality. The grower reported he believed the taro was infected with Erwinia carotovora bacteria and, because the weather two months prior had been warm and rainy, a second growth had been induced in the taro, resulting in a lower starch content. Again, two samples were randomly selected for analysis of moisture content, sugar profile and starch content. Chips were prepared and photographed.

Batch 7 results Appearance The chips produced from these taro corms were an acceptable appearance, texture and flavour. There was no unacceptable browning of the chips. Analytical Table 4C shows the results of the taro analysed from Batch 7. Table 4C Analytical results of top and middle of three taro corms from Batch 7. Sample Moisture Fructos Glucose Sucrose Maltose Total Reducing Starch (%) e g/100 g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g sugars/100 g sugars g/100 g g g/100 g T Top 71.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 5.8 T Middle 67.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 <0.1 0.7 0.4 10.5 U Top 74.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 5.0 U Middle 68.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 <0.1 1.1 0.6 10.4 V Top 71.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 6.0 V Middle 64.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 0.6 0.3 12.5

Batch 8 results Appearance The chips produced from these taro corms were an acceptable appearance, texture and flavour. There was no unacceptable browning of the chips. Figure 24C shows the appearance of the taro corms prior to processing and Figure 25C shows the appearance of the chips produced from these corms.

Figure 24C Taro corms from Batch 8 before processing.

Figure 25C Taro chips produced from Batch 8 taro corms.

Analytical Table 5C shows the results of the taro analysed from Batch 8. Table 5C Analytical results of top and middle of two taro corms from Batch 8.

Sample Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Maltose Total sugars Reducing Starch (%) g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g sugars g/100 g g/100 g 2 Middle 69.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.6 19.3 4 Middle 73.0 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 18.7

Batch 9 results Appearance The chips produced from these taro corms were an acceptable appearance, texture and flavour. There was no unacceptable browning of the chips. Figure 26C shows the appearance of the taro corms prior to processing and Figure 27C shows the appearance of the chips produced from these corms.

Figure 26C Taro corms from Batch 9.

Figure 27C Taro chips produced from taro corms from Batch 9.

Analytical Table 6C shows the results of the taro analysed from Batch 9. Table 6C Analytical results of top and middle of three taro corms from Batch 9. Sample Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Maltose Total sugar Reducing Starch (%) g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100 g sugar g/100 g g/100 g A1 Top 69.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 20.6 A1 Middle 57.8 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.5 25.9 A2 Top 67.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 24.1 A2 Middle 60.2 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 24.9

Batch 10 results Appearance The chips produced from these taro corms were an acceptable appearance, texture and flavour. There was no unacceptable browning of the chips. Figure 28C shows the appearance of the taro corms prior to processing and Figure 29C shows the appearance of the chips produced from these corms.

Figure 28C Taro corms from Batch 10.

Figure 29C Taro chips produced from Batch 10 taro. Analytical Table 7C shows the results of the taro analysed from Batch 10. Table 7C Analytical results of top and middle of two taro corms from Batch 10. Sample Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Maltose Total Reducing Starch (%) g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g sugar sugar g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g A5 Top 74.9 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 16.7 A5 Middle 71.6 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 15.8 A6 Top 74.2 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 15.6 A6 Middle 71.7 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.5 15.5

Conclusions All of the taro corms supplied for this trial, identified as being somehow inferior or damaged, produced acceptable taro chips. The taro from a conventional farm, as well as an organic farm, also produced acceptable taro chips. Moisture contents varying from 57.8% to 74.9% were recorded for these samples, total sugar contents ranged from 0.3% to 1.1%, reducing sugar contents ranged from 0.2 to 0.6% and starch content ranged from 5% to 25.9%. It was not possible to identify any particular parameter in the taro corm that would produce sub- quality taro chips.

4.11 Quality of taro chips for consumer acceptance testing Methods

Four different variations of the taro chips were prepared for the purpose of the consumer acceptance testing. These were: • 1.2-1.4mm chips with 5% added salt • 1.2-1.4mm chips with 7% added salt • 1.5-1.75mm chips with 5% added salt • 1.5-1.75mm chips with 7% added salt. These varieties were prepared with taro designated as Batch 11. Batch 11 taro arrived in Brisbane on 11 August 2003. This product was identified by the grower, Philippe Petiniaud, as being end-of- season product that had been attacked by grasshoppers. Two composite samples from the taro corms were analysed for moisture content, sugar profile and starch content. Chips were produced from this taro according to the cooking regime outlined in previous steps.

Batch 11 results Appearance

Figure 30C gives an indication of the appearance of the taro chips produced for consumer acceptance testing. Generally, these chips were a lower quality product than previous chips prepared. The overall appearance was darker than previous batches of chips and considerable sorting and dumping of unacceptably dark chips was undertaken. The chips also had an oily appearance.

Figure 30C Appearance of taro chips served in consumer acceptance panel. Analytical Table 8C Analytical results of composite samples taken from various corms from Batch 11. Sample Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Maltose Total sugar Reducing Starch g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g g/100 g sugar g/100 g (%) g/100 g A 67.8 0.4 0.5 0.2 <0.1 1.1 0.9 18.3 B 65.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 <0.1 1.0 0.7 17.6

Table 8C shows the analytical results from two composite samples from Batch 11.

Conclusions The quality of the chips produced for the consumer acceptance testing was sub-optimal. A review of analytical results from previous batches of taro shows the reducing sugar content of this taro was quite high compared with many previous samples. Other samples with reducing sugar values of similar magnitude included samples B and C from Batch 4 (1.3% and 1.1% respectively), and Sample G from Batch 5 (0.9%). The appearance of these samples was also somewhat browner than desired. It should be noted all of these samples were from the top of the corm. There was no differentiation between top and middle for the taro used to produce the consumer samples and it is possible that the reducing sugar content of the tops of the corms was considerably higher than the values from the composite sample.

4.12 Quality of taro chips for focus group testing Methods Focus groups were conducted seven days after the consumer acceptance testing was completed. A further batch of taro corms (Batch 12) was sent from North Queensland for the purposes of preparing these chips, particularly as the chips presented to the consumer acceptance testing were considered to be of poor quality compared to the majority of chips produced during the course of this project. This taro was sourced from a conventional grower in the Babinda area. These chips were prepared according to the cooking regime outlined previously. The thickness of the chips prepared for the focus groups was 1.5-1.75mm, with 7% salt addition.

Batch 12 results

The taro chips produced from Batch 12 had the preferred golden colour and overall were considered to be a better quality product than the chips produced for the consumer acceptance testing. An example of the chips for the focus group testing can be seen in Figure 31C.

Figure 31C Appearance of taro chips produced for focus group testing.

4.13 Taro chip yield Methods Taro chip yield was measured during production of chips for the purposes of a storage trial. Losses are experienced at each of the following steps: • Peeling taro corms • Slicing – where ends of the corm are removed and any undersize slices are discarded • Frying • Sorting – to remove discoloured, undercooked or undersized taro chips. Three separate batches were prepared. Corms were selected so that approximately half of each batch would consist of the smaller size corms (weighing between approximately 500-650g) and the other half the larger size corms (weighing between approximately 1000-1400g).

Results Table 9C details the weight of the taro after each step in the chip process. Table 10C details the yield of each processing step. Table 9C Weights of taro at various stages during chip process. Batch Corms After peeling Raw slices Cooked, Final product (g) and docking (g) salted chips (g) (g) (g) 2 October 5 150 4 704 3 600 1 580 1 480 6 October 12 262 9 602 8 700 3 890 3 635 7 October 13 693 10 253 10 200 4 670 4 145

Table 10C Yield of each chip-processing step. Batch Peeling and Slicing (%) Cooking (%) Sorting Overall yield docking (%) (%) 2 October 91.3 76.5 43.9 93.7 28.7 6 October 78.3 90.6 44.7 93.4 29.6 7 October 74.9 99.9 45.8 88.8 30.3

There is a considerable discrepancy between the peeling and docking yield and slicing yield of the 2 October samples compared to the 6 and 7 October samples. For instance, the 2 October samples recorded a 91.3% peeling and docking yield compared to 78.3% and 74.9% for 6 and 7 October, respectively. This is likely to be due to a different operator including the weight of the docked ends of the corm being included in the slicing yield figures.

Conclusions The taro chip process, when conducted under the conditions described earlier in this report, produced an average yield of 29.5%.

4.14 Nutrition information Methods Taro chips were analysed on 21 August for the nutrition information required to fulfil mandatory labelling requirements. These chips were from the samples produced for the focus group, which were 1.5-1.75mm thick with 7% salt addition. The details of the tests are in Table 11C. Test methods are detailed under methods at the beginning of this technical information section.

Results Table 11C Results of nutrition analysis of taro chips. Test Result Moisture content (g/100 g) 2.0 Fat content (g/100 g) 23.4 Saturated fat (g/100 g) 6.4 Protein (Nx6.25)(g/100 g) 4.9 Ash (g/100 g) 3.5 Total carbohydrates (g/100g) 60.7 Total dietary fibre (g/100 g) 5.5 Total sugars (g/100 g) 2.1 Energy (kJ/100 g) 2025 Sodium (mg/100 g) 251

4.15 Ingredient list Methods The ingredient list was prepared according to the method stipulated in Standard 1.2.4 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Results There are three ingredients used to prepare the taro chips. These are taro, cottonseed oil (Calvay) and salt. The cottonseed oil is a compound ingredient, and because there is more than 5% oil in the final product, all of its ingredients need to be declared. The ingredients of the Calvay are: Vegetable oil, antioxidant (319). The ingredient list of the taro chips should read: Taro, Vegetable Oil (vegetable oil, antioxidant (319)), Salt. It is permissible to list the oil specifically as cottonseed oil. Unilever, the supplier of the Calvay, has confirmed that Calvay is not sourced from genetically modified material and a specification is included in Appendix 2.

4.16 Storage trial Methods A storage trial was conducted to determine the shelf life of the taro chips. The storage trial has been designed to evaluate the shelf life of three different pack sizes of the chips and also to evaluate whether gas flushing will have any influence on the shelf life of the chips. Taro chips of 1.5-1.75mm thick with 7% salt addition were prepared for the purposes of a storage trial. The taro chips were produced according to the methods outlined previously in this report, on 2 October, 6 and 7 October, using taro corms delivered to Brisbane on 29 September 2003. This taro was provided from Philippe Petiniaud’s farm. After cooking and salting, the chips were sorted to discard any undercooked, overcooked or undersized samples. They were stored in polythene bags overnight and packed into metallised foil packs the following day. The name of the foil packs was Propafoil (metallised). It was 25 micron thick, with an oxygen transmission rate of 100cc/m2/24 hours (25°C; 45% relative humidity) and a water vapour

transmission rate of 1.5g/m2/24 hours (38°C; 90% relative humidity). The foil bags were prepared from a roll of rewind supplied by a packaging supplier and formed by heat sealing the edges using a Venus heat sealing machine. After weighing the chips into the bag, the bags were sealed twice along the top edge. Those packs which were gas flushed were sealed with an atmosphere of 70% nitrogen and 30% carbon dioxide. Testing regime The testing regime for the taro chips can be seen in Table 12C. Sensory assessment involves assessment of appearance, odour, texture and flavour and is conducted by the product development technologist and senior technician. The following analytical test methods were used:

Moisture content – Vacuum oven drying method (AOAC (2000) 934.06) Free Fatty Acid – Deeth H.C., Fitz-Gerald C. H. and Wood A.F. (1979) Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 34, 146-149. Peroxide Value – A.O.A.C. (2000) 965.33

Table 12C Testing regime for storage trial of taro chips. Test Initial Week Week Week Week Week Week Week 1 2 4 8 12 14 16 50 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 20°C Moisture content 9 9 9 9 9 9 Free fatty acids 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peroxide value 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 50 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 30°C Moisture content 9 9 9 9 9 Free fatty acids 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peroxide value 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 50 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 20°C Moisture content 9 9 9 9 9 Free fatty acids 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peroxide value 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 50 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 30°C Moisture content 9 9 9 9 9 Free fatty acids 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peroxide value 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 100 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 20°C Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 100 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 20°C Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 200 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 20°C Moisture content 9 9 9 9 9 Free fatty acids 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peroxide value 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 assessment 200 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 20°C Moisture content 9 9 9 9 9 Free fatty acids 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peroxide value 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sensory 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 assessment

Results

Detailed analytical results and sensory assessments of the storage trial of the packs of taro chips can be seen in Appendix 3.

4.16.1 50g packs of Taro Chips

Analytical Results Samples stored at 20oC, without gas flushing Overall, there did not appear to be any substantial change in the moisture content over the course of the storage trial. Minor increase and decreases of moisture compared to the initial value were recorded, however these could have been due to pack to pack variation. There was no comments relating to changes in texture corresponding with these results.

There was no increase in the free fatty acid values over the course of the storage trial.

There was a 32% increase in the peroxide values, compared to the initial results, which was first noted at week 8. Peroxide values remained at this level or higher for the remainder of the storage trial. It should be noted, however, that there were no comments regarding changes in flavour to correspond with these increases.

Samples stored at 30oC, without gas flushing There was no substantial change in the moisture content over the course of the storage trial, nor was there any increase in the free fatty acid values.

There was a 132% increase in the peroxide values, compared to the initial results, at week 8. Peroxide values remained at this level or higher for the remainder of the storage trial, with the value recorded at week 16 being 336% higher than the initial result.

Samples stored at 20oC, with gas flushing There did appear to be a slight increase in the moisture content over the course of the storage trial. However, this increase was only 8% higher than initial values i.e. from 4.7% to 5.1% and may have been due to pack to pack variation.

There was no increase in the free fatty acid values over the course of the storage trial

There was a 32% increase in the peroxide values, compared to the initial results, which was first noted at week 8. Peroxide values remained at this level or higher for the remainder of the storage trial, with the value recorded at week 16 being 73% higher than the initial result.

Samples stored at 30oC, with gas flushing There was no substantial change in the moisture content over the course of the storage trial, nor was there any increase in the free fatty acid values.

There was a 59% increase in the peroxide values, compared to the initial results, which was first noted at week 8. Peroxide values then increased with the value recorded at week 16 being 400% higher than the initial result.

Sensory Assessment Initial Samples The appearance was described as being typical of a taro chip. The odour was described as a clean odour and the texture as crisp and crunchy. The flavour was described as a clean, salty flavour.

Samples stored at 20oC, without gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples over the course of the storage trial. The only change noted was that the odour was described as slightly oily at week 16.

Samples stored at 30oC, without gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples up until week 12. At week 12, it was noted that the flavour had a slight stale note. At this point, a peroxide value of 6.0meq/kg had been recorded. This flavour remained at week 14. By week 16, the chips had a slightly fishy aftertaste and were regarded as unacceptable. The peroxide value at week 16 was 9.6meq/kg.

Samples stored at 20oC, with gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples over the course of the storage trial. The only change noted was that the odour was described as slightly oily at week 16. It was noted at week 2 that the texture of the chips seemed to be slightly more crisp than that of the corresponding non gas flushed samples. However, by week 4 there seemed to be little difference in the texture of the gas flushed and non gas flushed samples. The flavour of these samples at week 16 was described as slightly fresher than that of the 20oC which were not gas flushed.

Samples stored at 30oC, with gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples up until week 12. At week 12, it was noted that the flavour had a slight stale note, although this was regarded as less intense than the non gas flushed 30oC sample. At this point, a peroxide value of 8.2meq/kg had been recorded. At week 16, the flavour was described as old and tired, less “fresh” than the corresponding 20oC samples, although it was agreed that when tasted in isolation the product would still be regarded as acceptable.

At week 14, the odour was described as slightly stale and at week 16, as a slightly oily odour. It was noted at week 2 that the texture of the chips seemed to be slightly more crisp than that of the corresponding non gas flushed samples. However, from week 4 to week 14 there seemed to be little difference in the texture of the gas flushed and non gas flushed samples. Comments at week 16 were that the chips had a cleaner, crisper break or bite than the non gas flushed samples stored at 30oC.

4.16.2 100g packs of Taro Chips

Detailed results of the sensory assessment of the 100g packs of taro chips can be seen in Appendix 3.

Samples stored at 20oC, without gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples over the course of the storage trial. The odour was described as slightly stale at week 16. When compared to the 100g packs of chips which had been gas flushed, it was noted that the texture was slightly less crisp (week 16) and the flavour slightly less fresh (week 14).

Samples stored at 20oC, with gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples over the course of the storage trial. At week 4, it was noted that the texture of the gas flushed samples seemed to have a cleaner, crisper bite/break than the corresponding non gas flushed sample, although this difference was not noted from week 12 to week 16.

At week 14 and 16 it was noted that the flavour of the gas flushed samples was slightly fresher than that of the non gas flushed samples.

4.16.3 200g packs of Taro Chips

Detailed results of the storage trial of the 200g packs of taro chips can be seen in Appendix 3.

Analytical Results Samples stored at 20oC, without gas flushing There seemed to be an overall increase in the moisture content of these samples. However, this increase was not consistent, with the value at week 14, actually representing a decrease in moisture. By week 16 the moisture content recorded was 6.5%, which was a 38% increase on the value of 4.7% which was recorded at the start of the trial.

There was no increase in the free fatty acid values over the course of the storage trial.

The peroxide values increased from week 8 onwards, with values of 2.5, 2.9 and 2.6 meq/kg recorded at weeks 8, 12 and 16 respectively.

Samples stored at 20oC, with gas flushing The changes in moisture content were inconsistent for the gas flushed samples, with decreases and increases recorded over the course of the storage trial. Overall, there are no conclusions to draw from these results and the results may have been due to pack to pack variation.

There was no increase in the free fatty acid values over the course of the storage trial.

The peroxide values increased from week 12 onwards, with values of 2.8 and 3.2 meq/kg recorded at weeks 12 and 16 respectively, representing increases of 27% and 45% compared to the initial sample.

Samples stored at 20oC, without gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples until week 12. At week 12 the flavour was described as slightly stale. This carried through to week 16. It was also noted at week 16 that the flavour was not as fresh as the 50g non gas flushed samples which had been stored at 20oC.

At week 16, the texture was described as being crisp on the initial bite, however the chip was not crunchy and did not break cleanly in the mouth. This corresponded with a moisture content of 6.5%.

Samples stored at 20oC, with gas flushing There was very little change noted in the sensory attributes of these samples until week 12. At week 12 the flavour was described as slightly stale. This carried through to week 16, although it was noted at week 14 and 16 that the flavour was slightly fresher than the 200g non gas flushed samples. At week 8, it was noted that the texture was crisper and cleaner than the 200g non gas flushed chips. This was far more pronounced by week 16.

Conclusions

The storage trial of the 50g packs of the taro chips illustrates the effect of storage temperature on the shelf life of the chips.

When stored at 20oC and packed into 50g packs, the Taro chips from this production batch, had a shelf life of at least 4 months. Gas flushing these packs had a subtle effect on the texture of the chips in that the chips that were gas flushed were slightly crisper than the non gas flushed samples at week 2. This effect was not, however, noted at any later sample points.

The shelf life of the taro chips when packed into 50g packs and stored at 30oC was 14 weeks for the non gas flushed product and 16 weeks for the gas flushed product. It should be noted, however, that the quality of chips, whilst not unacceptable, was regarded as suboptimal from week 12 onwards when stored at 30oC. It is interesting to note that a peroxide value of 11 was recorded for the gas flushed samples at week 16, which was described as tasting slightly old and tired, but still acceptable. In contrast, a peroxide value of 9.6 was recorded for the gas flushed samples at week 16 and the flavour of these samples was described as having a fishy aftertaste and were regarded as unacceptable. It would appear that gas flushing may have some protective effect on the development of off flavours.

The shelf life of the 100g packs of taro chips when stored at 20oC was 16 weeks. Gas flushing showed a subtle effect of maintaining a slightly fresher flavour from week 14 onwards.

The shelf life of the taro chips when packed into 200g packs and stored at 20oC was 16 weeks. Again, it is worth noting that the quality of the chips was suboptimal (although still acceptable) from week 12 onwards for both the gas flushed and non gas flushed packaging. There was a pronounced difference in the texture of the gas flushed and non gas flushed chips in the 200g packs, with the gas flushed chips having a much crisper texture at week 16. There were, however substantial differences in moisture content of these samples (6.5% for the non gas flushed samples and 3.8% for the gas flushed samples), so that it is uncertain whether this was due to the gas flushing or was pack to pack variation. The flavour of the gas flushed sample was described as slightly fresher than the non gas flushed sample at weeks 14 and 16.

5. Section D - Sensory evaluation

5.1 Objectives • To assess the consumer acceptability (appearance, odour, flavour, texture and overall acceptability) of four variations of taro chips at the Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences, Food Technology (AFFS, FT), Hamilton, Queensland. • To collect information regarding the level of saltiness and the size, thickness and crunchiness of the taro chips using just right scales. • To collect additional information regarding the samples through selection of appearance, odour, flavour and texture descriptors as well as comments regarding what the consumers liked or disliked about the taro chip samples. • To obtain demographic data on the consumers and their purchasing and consumption habits relating to salted snack products.

5.2 Methodology

5.2.1 Recruitment Consumers living in the Brisbane area were recruited to assess the taro chip samples. An advertisement for food tasters was placed in three community newspapers. People who responded to the advertisement were asked several questions to determine their eligibility to take part in the consumer testing. The consumers who were recruited were at least 18 years old and had eaten at least one variety of premium high indulgence chips (Kettle Chips, Red Rock Deli Chips, Pringles, Ajitas Vege Chips or Byron Bay Chilli Co Chips) in the past six months.

5.2.2 Samples Four taro chip samples were supplied:

1. Taro chips 1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with 7% salt addition (489) 2. Taro chips 1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with 5% salt addition (512) 3. Taro chips 1.5 - 1.75 mm thick with 7% salt addition (706) 4. Taro chips 1.5 -1.75 mm thick with 5% salt addition (134) Note: The three-digit blinding codes used to identify the samples (1–4) are in brackets following the sample description. Taro chips, 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7% salt addition were also presented to the consumers as a ‘warm up’ sample to familiarise them with the questionnaire to be used and the testing environment. All taro chip samples were made at Food Technology, Hamilton, Queensland. The Sensory and Consumer Science section received the samples on 6 August 2003. The samples were retained at room temperature (approximately 20oC) until required for testing.

5.2.3 Samples preparation and presentation The consumers received four taro chips for each sample. Each sample was presented to the consumers in a round, transparent plastic container on a white plastic tray. All samples were presented with only the appropriate three-digit blinding code as identification. All samples were served at room temperature.

5.2.4 Sensory evaluation Methods Seventy-two consumers attended one of four sessions held from 6-8 August 2003 at Food Technology, Hamilton, Queensland. Each consumer received a small remuneration to cover the cost of travel and incidentals. Initially, all the consumers were briefed on the testing procedure and the sample questionnaire. A 100 g sample of 1.2-1.4 mm and 1.5-1.75 mm taro chips was shown to the consumers to enable them to answer questions relating to a 100 g pack size. These verbal instructions were followed by the presentation of a ‘warm up’ sample in the sensory booths. The ‘warm up’ or orientation sample was served to the consumers to provide them with practical experience of the test procedure and sample questionnaire. The consumers were not told that this initial ‘warm up’ sample was presented to them for familiarisation only and from which the data would not be utilised. Staff from Sensory and Consumer Science supervised the consumers as they assessed the ‘warm up’ sample so that any potential problems could be rectified prior to the assessment of the actual test samples. Subsequently, the consumers assessed four taro chip samples in two sets of two samples. The order in which the four taro chip test samples were assessed was balanced as much as the design would allow. The consumers were instructed to eat as much of the sample as they required to answer all the questions and were provided with spittoons should they wish to spit the sample out. They were also instructed to cleanse their palate with water between samples. Assessments were conducted in the purpose built sensory evaluation booths under white light (daylight equivalent). Sample data was collected using a computerised data collection system using Compusense 5 software. The consumers assessed the samples using a standard rating test (Australian Standard 2542.2.3, 1988). The line scales were anchored with verbal anchors where the left hand end was equivalent to 0 and the right hand end was equivalent to 100. Therefore, a mean sensory score of 50 represents the mid-point on the line scale. The questionnaire included hedonic scales for appearance, odour, flavour, texture and overall acceptability. ‘Just right’ line scales were also included for the saltiness, size, thickness and crunchiness of the taro chips. Examples of the line scales used can be seen in Figures 1D and 2D. The verbal anchors for the line scales are as listed below: Appearance acceptability (dislike extremely (0), neither like nor dislike (50), like extremely (100)) Odour acceptability (dislike extremely (0), neither like nor dislike (50), like extremely (100)) Flavour acceptability (dislike extremely (0), neither like nor dislike (50), like extremely (100)) Texture acceptability (dislike extremely (0), neither like nor dislike (50), like extremely (100))

Overall acceptability (dislike extremely (0), neither like nor dislike (50), like extremely (100)) Saltiness (not salty enough (0), just right (50), too salty (100)) Size of the taro chips (not big enough (0), just right (50), too big (100)) Thickness (not thick enough (0), just right (50), too thick (100)) Crunchy (not crunchy enough (0), just right (50), too crunchy (100))

How much do you like or dislike the odour of sample 222? dislike extremely neither like nor dislike like extremely (0) (50) (100) Figure 1D Example of a hedonic line scale.

What do you think about the level of salt in taro chip sample 222? not salty enough just right too salty (0) (50) (100) Figure 2D Example of a ‘just right’ line scale.

Note: The consumers only see the verbal anchors, not the numerical values. The consumers could also select descriptors from lists for appearance, odour, flavour and texture as well as add any additional comments relating to what they liked or disliked about each sample.

5.2.5 Demographic questionnaire In the break between the two sets of two samples, the consumers were also given instructions on how to complete a paper demographic questionnaire. A copy of the demographic questionnaire can be found in Appendix 4. Several questions were relating to different brands of salted snack products and example packs of the various brands were shown to the consumers to help them answer the questions. 5.2.6 Statistical analysis A one-way randomised block analysis of variance – using the consumers as blocks – was performed for each attribute. Where a significant (P<0.05) F-ratio was found, pair-wise comparisons using Fishers’ least significant difference procedure were completed.

For the descriptor data, the number of consumers selecting a particular descriptor is expressed as a percentage of the total number of consumers. Likewise, for the demographic data, the number of consumers making a particular selection is expressed as a percentage of the total number of consumers.

5.3 Consumer demographics Of the 72 consumers who evaluated the taro chip samples, 69% were female and 31% were male. The distribution across the different age groups can be seen below (Table 1D).

Table 1D Consumer age group distribution. Age group 18 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61+

Percentage 47% 18% 18% 14% 3% (n=72)

Table 2D ‘What is your highest level of education?’ Some high Completed high Primary school Tertiary Other school school (year 12) Percentage 1% 21% 28% 50% 0% (n=72) Note: Tertiary was taken to include certificate, diploma, degree or postgraduate qualification.

Table 2D shows 50% of the consumers who completed the consumer testing of the taro chips were tertiary educated, with a further 28% having completed high school to year 12. Table 3D ‘Which brands of chips do you eat?’ Red Rock Lays Doritos Kettle Chips Thins Pringles Deli Chips Percentage 79% 82% 81% 7% 76% 75% (n=72)

Byron Bay Ajitas Vege Samboy Chilli Co Other None Chips Chips Percentage 63% 38% 1% 24% 1% (n=72)

In response to this question the consumers could select as many of the options as were applicable. More than 75% of the consumers ate Kettle Chips and Pringles. Both these brands were previously identified as premium high indulgence brands. For the other brands identified as premium high indulgence, Ajitas Vege Chips were eaten by 38% of the consumers and Red Rock Deli and Byron Bay Chilli Co chips were only eaten by 7% and 1% of the consumers respectively.

Table 4D ‘On average, how often do you purchase chips from the following outlets?’ Corner/ Service Bar/restaurant/ Frequency (n=72) Supermarket convenience store station cafe Other Weekly 33% 8% 6% 3% 3% Monthly 36% 31% 17% 3% 4% Every 2-3 months 17% 18% 13% 6% 7% Every 3-6 months 7% 10% 17% 10% 4% Every 6-12 months 3% 15% 19% 13% 10% Less than once per 4% 18% 29% 67% 70% year or never

Table 4D shows the frequency of chip purchase from each of the outlets listed. A total of 69% of the consumers were purchasing chips at least monthly from a supermarket. Thirty-nine percent were purchasing chips from a corner or convenience store at least monthly. Consumers were less likely to purchase chips from service stations or bar/restaurant/cafes with 29% and 67% respectively indicating they purchased chips from these outlets less than once a year or never. Table 5D ‘On average, how often do you eat the following brands of chips?’ Byron Bay Ajitas Vege Frequency (n=72) Kettle Chips Chilli Co Chips Pringles Chips

Weekly 10% 0% 7% 4%

Monthly 29% 0% 18% 10%

Every 2-3 months 18% 0% 19% 8%

Every 3-6 months 15% 0% 15% 7%

Every 6-12 months 18% 3% 25% 11%

Less than once per year or never 10% 97% 15% 60%

Kettle Chips were the most frequently eaten brand of chips out of the four brands that were asked about. These were eaten at least monthly by 39% of the consumers. Pringles were also eaten at least monthly by 25% of the consumers. The Byron Bay Chilli Co Chips were the least frequently eaten with 97% of the consumers having eaten them less than once per year or never. Table 6D ‘If a 100 g pack of potato Kettle chips costs approximately $2-2.50, how much would you be willing to pay for the same sized pack of taro chips?’ Less than More than

$2 $2-$2.50 $2.50-$3 $3-$3.50 $3.50-$4 $4 Percentage 22% 64% 13% 1% 0% 0% (n=72)

The majority of the consumers (64%) responded they would be willing to pay $2-$2.50 for a 100 g pack of taro chips. This is in the same price range as a 100 g pack of potato Kettle chips at various outlets in the Brisbane area.

Table 7D ‘What category does your occupation fit into?’ Trades- Advanced person and clerical and Mangers/ Associate related service administrators Professionals professionals workers workers Percentag 6% 10% 1% 8% 3% e (n=72)

Intermediate Intermediate Elementary clerical, sales production and clerical, sales Labourers and service transport and service and related workers workers workers workers Other Percentag 10% 1% 7% 3% 51% e (n=72) The majority of consumers (51%) selected ‘other’ as their occupational category. It is unknown whether these people are mainly comprised of housewives, retirees or students etc., or if they were people unsure of what category they fitted and therefore selected ‘other’.

Table 8D ‘Within what range is your total household income?’ Do not wish Less than $20,000 - $40,000 - More than to answer this $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 question Percentage 22% 29% 24% 11% 14% (n=72) The consumers were requested to indicate the total income for their household. The consumers recruited came from a range of income brackets with at least 35% having a total household income greater than $40,000.

5.4 Sensory evaluation results

Table 9D Mean sensory scores for acceptability of taro chips. Sample Appearance Odour Flavour Texture Overall (ns) ns) (ns) (ns) (ns) 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7% salt addition 53 59 52 55 53 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5% salt addition 54 61 54 58 53 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 7% 55 58 55 54 56 salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 5% 53 59 57 54 56 salt addition Least significant difference (LSD) (P=0.05) 4.3 3.7 5.4 4.8 4.9 Note - All scales: dislike extremely (0), neither like nor dislike (50), like extremely (100) (ns) – not significantly different (P>0.05) Table 9D shows no significant differences (P>0.05) were found between the four samples of taro chips in terms of appearance, odour, flavour, texture or overall acceptability. For all of these

characteristics the scores ranged from 52-61, which is just above the neither like nor dislike region of the scale.

Table 10D Mean sensory scores for characteristics measured on ‘just right’ scales. Sample Saltiness* Size Thickness* Crunchiness (ns) (ns) 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7% salt addition 40b 42 37a 42 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5% salt addition 30a 43 36a 44 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 7% 52c 44 45c 42 salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 5% 40b 42 41b 41 salt addition Least significant difference (LSD) (P=0.05) 5.4 2.7 2.9 3.6 Note - Scales: Not enough of named attribute (0), just right (50), too much of named attribute (100) * amples are significantly different at the 5% level (P<0.05) (ns) not significantly different (P>0.05) a, b, c means within a column not followed by a common letter are significantly different (P<0.05)

The scores relating to the size and crunchiness of the taro chips (Table 10D) suggest the consumers thought all the taro chips sampled were slightly on the small size and were slightly not crunchy enough. No significant differences (P>0.05) were found between samples for size and crunchiness. Significant differences (P<0.05) were found in the level of salt in the taro chip samples. The taro chip sample 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 7% salt was closest to ‘just right’ on the scale with a mean score of 52. This sample was significantly different (P<0.05) to the other three samples in terms of saltiness. Taro chip sample 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5% salt scored the lowest for saltiness. It had a mean score of 30, suggesting that it was not salty enough. This sample was significantly different (P<0.05) to the other three samples of taro chips in terms of saltiness. For both the 1.2-1.4 mm and 1.5-1.75 mm thick chips, the 7% salt addition was closer to ‘just right’ on the scale than the 5% salt addition although the 7% salt addition on the 1.5-1.75 mm thick chips was significantly closer (P<0.05) to ‘just right’ than the 7% salt addition on the 1.2-1.4 mm thick taro chips. The 1.2-1.4 mm thick samples received significantly lower (P<0.05) scores than the 1.5-1.75 mm thick samples on the ‘just right’ scale for thickness, however all four samples had scores below 50, suggesting all samples may be slightly too thin. Even though the thicker chips were all cut at 1.5- 1.75 mm, the sample with the 7% salt addition was rated significantly different (P<0.05) to the sample with 5% salt addition and closer to ‘just right’ on the scale. From the descriptors selected by the consumers to describe the samples (Tables 11D – 14D), more consumers selected oily appearance, odour and flavour to describe the 1.2-1.4 mm thick samples than the 1.5-1.75mm thick samples. Pale was selected to describe the appearance of the 1.5- 1.75 mm thick samples slightly more than the 1.2–1.4 mm samples. The two samples with the 5% salt addition were described as bland more often and tasty less often than the 7% salt samples.

Table 11D Odour standard descriptors. None of the Sample Fresh Stale Oily Other above 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7% 50% 11% 49% 17% 8% salt addition 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5% 58% 7% 50% 14% 3% salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 63% 4% 35% 17% 10% 7% salt addition

1.5-1.75 mm thick with 60% 10% 38% 11% 4% 5% salt addition

Table 12D Appearance standard descriptors. Processed/ Not None of Evenly Sample Natural Manu Oily Pale Dark evenly Other the cooked factured cooked above 1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with 7% 49% 11% 43% 44% 1% 24% 49% 4% 0% salt addition 1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with 5% 53% 14% 49% 26% 8% 29% 36% 7% 0% salt addition 1.5 - 1.75 mm thick with 7% 54% 13% 28% 58% 1% 31% 31% 6% 0% salt addition 1.5 -1.75 mm thick with 5% 58% 10% 28% 61% 1% 22% 40% 1% 0% salt addition

Table 13D Flavour standard descriptors. None of Sample Bland Tasty Oily Fresh Stale Other the above 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 46% 35% 35% 35% 19% 10% 3% 7% salt addition 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 68% 21% 32% 31% 17% 11% 1% 5% salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 32% 44% 18% 28% 24% 18% 1% 7% salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 58% 29% 19% 38% 22% 6% 1% 5% salt addition

Table 14D Texture standard descriptors. None of Oily No oily Sample Crispy Brittle Pasty Sticky Other the mouthfeel mouthfeel above 1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with 68% 25% 22% 14% 29% 32% 8% 0% 7% salt addition 1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with 65% 22% 29% 11% 28% 35% 4% 1% 5% salt addition 1.5 - 1.75 mm thick 68% 17% 32% 8% 21% 36% 10% 0% with 7% salt addition 1.5 -1.75 mm thick 64% 22% 35% 10% 18% 39% 6% 0% with 5% salt addition

Table 15D ‘How likely or unlikely are you to purchase these taro chips if they cost $3 per 100 g pack?’ Probably Definitely Probably Definitely Sample Undecided would not would buy would buy would not buy buy 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 3% 25% 22% 32% 18% 7% salt addition 1.2-1.4 mm thick with 6% 17% 25% 35% 18% 5% salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 8% 28% 25% 22% 17% 7% salt addition 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 8% 22% 24% 32% 14% 5% salt addition

From Table 15D for each of the samples assessed, more people indicated they probably or definitely would not buy the sample at $3.00/100g than indicated that they probably or definitely would purchase the taro chip samples. However, more consumers (total of 36%) indicated they probably or definitely would purchase the 1.5-1.75 mm thick taro chip with 7% salt addition at $3.00/100g than the other samples. The decision to purchase or not may be based on the consumers liking or disliking and/or price factor as well any other factors influencing consumers.

5.4.1 Summary No significant differences (P>0.05) were found in the overall acceptability between the four taro chip samples assessed by the consumers. However, in terms of saltiness and thickness, the mean sensory scores for the 1.5-1.75 mm thick with 7% salt sample was closer to ‘just right’ than the other three samples.

6. Conclusions The salty snack market in Australia is diverse and growing at a steady rate. It is extremely competitive and dominated by two major players, Smiths and Arnott’s. Potato chips account for more than 55% of the category’s sales. However there are a number of new niche products being presented to the market. The power of the brand cannot be underestimated. No taro chip product currently exists on the market. A sweet potato chip manufactured by Kettle (Arnotts) is possibly the closest substitute product on retail shelves. This product is produced and marketed by the Kettle Chip Company and retails for between $1.99 and $3.30/100 g. Another premium chip product has recently been launched onto the market. ‘Red Rock Deli Chips’ are manufactured by Smiths and have been developed to capture back some of the market share gained by Arnotts Kettle Chips. These chips retail for approximately 25% more than regular potato chips. Based on discussions with retailers, brokers and distributors in the industry, the convenience store and independent grocers may prove to be the best option for distribution. The adult/premium indulgence segment of the market appears to offer an opportunity for the proposed taro chip. Possible competitive advantages over existing substitute chips may include • Australian owned and made (Kettle is an Arnotts brand. Arnotts is owned by Campbells USA) • Made from Australian ingredients, specifically Far North Queensland (The Vege Chip Co uses both Australian and imported ingredients). Consumers with the following demographics would provide the most suitable target market for the proposed taro chip product. • North Queensland and Far North Queensland residents • Adult (single or with no children) • High income earners • Well educated (post secondary and tertiary). The current price of the raw material ($3-4/kg) should be of significant concern. While consumer acceptance testing indicated a favourable response to the product, most consumers weren’t willing to pay any more than the price of existing substitute salty snack products.

7. Appendices 7.1 Appendix 1 7.1.1 Analytical results of taro corms after 0, 1 and 2 weeks of storage at 4°C and 10°C

Sample Storage Storage Moisture Fructose Glucose Sucrose Maltose Total sugar Reducing sugars Starch Temp. Time % g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100 g g/100 g g/100g J Top Initial 74.0 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 14.8 J Middle 67.0 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.5 18.5 K Top 72.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 13.9 K Middle 66.3 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 18.4 L Top 10°C 1 week 75.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 12.5 L Middle 65.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 20.3 M Top 68.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 18.2 M Middle 66.7 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.0 17.5 N Top 4°C 1 week 71.8 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.7 15.4 N Middle 66.9 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.8 18.1 O Top 77.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.5 12.8 O Middle 66.2 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.6 21.4 P Top 10°C 2 weeks 68.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.6 9.1 P Middle 64.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 <0.1 1.0 0.6 14.1 Q Top 66.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 <0.1 0.9 0.7 9.7 Q Middle 68.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.6 11.3 R Top 4°C 2 weeks 68.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 <0.1 1.0 0.8 7.9 R Middle 67.6 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.6 13.2 S Top 73.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 <0.1 1.5 0.5 6.4 S Middle 67.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 <0.1 0.6 0.4 11.5

7.2 Appendix 2 7.2.1 Calvay specifications

Product data sheet Calvay 20 Litres Unilever Product Number 0857910 APN: 9310494857914 TUN: n/a Gross shipper weight: 20.25 kg No. of units per shipper n/a Shipper dimensions (LxWxH in mm) 289 x 289 x 358 No. of shippers per pallet: 32 Product features: Calvay is a vegetable frying medium produced from a refined and deodorised cottonseed oil. Product uses: Deep frying vegetable oil

Typical analysis Free fatty acids (% Oleic) 0.10 max Peroxide value at manufacture (meq/kg) 1.0 max Moisture (%) 0.10 max Colour ( 25 mm Lovibond cell ) 25.0Y/2.5R max

Nutrition information: Per 100 g product Energy (kJ) 3700 Protein (g) Nil Fat (g), total 100 Saturated (g) 30.0 max Cholesterol (mg) 3 max Carbohydrate (g) Nil Sugars (g) Nil Sodium (mg) Nil Potassium (mg) Nil The above values are averages unless otherwise specified.

7.2.2 Ingredients list Vegetable oil, antioxidant [319 (200mg/kg)] and antifoam (900). Mandatory declaration re standard 1.2.3 No mandatory declarations required. Genetically modified status This product is exempt from labelling according to ANZ Food Standards Code Standard 1.5.2 Division 2. Suitability for vegetarian diets Yes Packaging recyclability Tinplate fully recyclable Recommended storage Clean, dry, ambient conditions Shelf life from date of manufacture: 12 months

Prepared by: Alastair Bennetts Unilever Development: Spreads and bakery

7.3 Appendix 3 7.3.1 Analytical results of the storage of 50g packs of taro chips

Table 1. Results of Taro Chips in 50g Packs, stored at 20oC without gas flushing

Sample Point Moisture content Free fatty acids Peroxide Value (as oleic acid) (meq/kg oil) Initial 4.7% 0.3% 2.2 Week 1 0.2% 1.1 Week 2 0.1% 0.9 Week 4 4.6% 0.3% 1.9 Week 8 5.4% 0.1% 2.9 Week 12 4.4% 0.2% 3.7 Week 14 3.6% Not tested Not tested Week 16 4.9% 0.2% 2.9

Table 2. Results of Taro Chips in 50g Packs, stored at 30oC without gas flushing

Sample Point Moisture content Free fatty acids Peroxide Value (as oleic acid) (meq/kg oil) Initial 4.7% 0.3% 2.2 Week 1 0.2% 1.1 Week 2 0.2% 2.7 Week 4 4.8% 0.2% 2.0 Week 8 4.2% 0.3% 5.1 Week 12 4.8% 0.2% 6.0 Week 14 4.2% Not tested Not tested Week 16 4.7% 0.2% 9.6

Table 3. Results of Taro Chips in 50g Packs, stored at 20oC, with gas flushing

Sample Point Moisture content Free fatty acids Peroxide Value (as oleic acid) (meq/kg oil) Initial 4.7% 0.3% 2.2 Week 1 0.1% 0.9 Week 2 0.2% 1.5 Week 4 5.1% 0.3% 2.3 Week 8 4.9% 0.3% 2.9 Week 12 5.0% 0.3% 3.4 Week 14 4.1% Not tested Not tested Week 16 5.1% 0.3% 3.8

Table 4. Results of Taro Chips in 50g Packs, stored at 30oC, with gas flushing

Sample Point Moisture content Free fatty acids Peroxide Value (as oleic acid) (meq/kg oil) Initial 4.7% 0.3% 2.2 Week 1 0.3% 1.8 Week 2 0.3% 1.8 Week 4 4.3% 0.3% 1.9 Week 8 4.6% 0.3% 3.5 Week 12 4.7% 0.3% 8.2 Week 14 3.3% Not tested Not tested Week 16 4.4% 0.3% 11.0

7.3.2 Sensory assessment of taro chips stored in 50g packs

Table 5. Results of 50g packs of Taro Chips stored at 20oC without gas flushing

Sample point Appearance Odour Texture Flavour Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy texture Clean, salty flavour Week 1 as above as above as above as above Week 2 as above as above as above as above Week 4 as above as above as above as above Week 8 as above as above as above as above Week 12 as above as above as above as above Week 14 as above as above as above as above Week 16 as above Slightly oily odour, although as above as above still acceptable

Table 6. Results of 50g packs of Taro Chips stored at 20oC with gas flushing

Sample point Appearance Odour Texture Flavour Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy texture Clean, salty flavour Week 1 as above as above as above as above Week 2 as above as above Texture seems slightly crisper as above than non gas flushed taro chip stored at 20oC. Week 4 as above as above Crisp, crunchy texture as above Week 8 as above as above as above as above Week 12 as above as above as above as above Week 14 as above as above as above as above Week 16 as above Slightly oily odour, although Crisp, crunchy texture; very Clean, salty flavour; taste still acceptable similar to the texture of the slightly fresher than the 20oC samples that were not gas samples which were not gas flushed. flushed.

Table 7. Results of 50g packs of Taro Chips stored at 30oC without gas flushing

Sample point Appearance Odour Texture Flavour Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy texture Clean, salty flavour Week 1 as above as above as above as above Week 2 as above as above as above as above Week 4 as above as above as above as above Week 8 as above as above as above as above Week 12 as above as above as above as above; very slight stale flavour noted. Week 14 as above Slightly stale odour as above as above Week 16 as above Slightly oily odour, although as above; similar to the Slightly fishy aftertaste; NOT still acceptable texture of the 20oC sample. ACCEPTABLE

Table 8. Results of 50g packs of Taro Chips stored at 30oC with gas flushing

Sample point Appearance Odour Texture Flavour Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy texture Clean, salty flavour Week 1 as above as above as above as above Week 2 as above as above Texture seems slightly crisper as above than non gas flushed taro chip stored at 30oC. Week 4 as above as above Crisp, crunchy texture as above Week 8 as above as above as above as above Week 12 as above as above as above As above; very slight stale flavour, this is less intense than non gas flushed sample. Week 14 as above Slightly stale odour as above as above Week 16 as above Slightly oily odour, although Crisp, crunchy texture; Taste old and tired compared still acceptable cleaner bite/break than non to the 20oC sample; however gas flushed 30oC sample. tasted in isolation would probably be acceptable

7.3.3 Sensory Assessment of Taro Chips stored in 100g packs.

Table 9. Results of 100g packs of Taro Chips stored at 20oC without gas flushing

Sample point Appearance Odour Texture Flavour Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy texture Clean, salty flavour Week 4 as above as above as above as above Week 8 as above as above as above as above Week 12 as above as above as above as above Week 14 as above as above as above as above Week 16 as above Slightly stale odour as above; not as crisp as gas Flavour is not as fresh as the flushed sample gas flushed sample; although is still acceptable.

Table 10. Results of 100g packs of Taro Chips stored at 20oC with gas flushing

Sample point Appearance Odour Texture Flavour Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy texture Clean, salty flavour Week 4 as above as above Crisp, crunchy texture; as above slightly cleaner break/bite than non gas flushed sample. Week 8 as above as above as above as above Week 12 as above as above Crisp, crunchy texture as above Week 14 as above as above as above Slightly fresher flavour than non gas flushed sample. Week 16 as above as above as above Clean, salty flavour

7.3.4 Analytical results of the storage of 200g packs of taro chips

Table 11. Results of Taro Chips in 200g packs, stored at 20oC, without gas flushing

Sample Point Moisture content Free fatty acids Peroxide Value (as oleic acid) (meq/kg oil) Initial 4.7% 0.3% 2.2 Week 1 0.2% 1.5 Week 2 0.2% 1.5 Week 4 6.3% 0.2% 2.2 Week 8 5.3% 0.2% 2.5 Week 12 5.4% 0.2% 2.9 Week 14 3.6% Not tested Not tested Week 16 6.5% 0.2% 2.6

Table 12. Results of Taro Chips in 200g packs, stored at 20oC, with gas flushing

Sample Point Moisture content Free fatty acids Peroxide Value (as oleic acid) (meq/kg oil) Initial 4.7% 0.3% 2.2 Week 1 0.2% 1.5 Week 2 0.2% 1.5 Week 4 6.4% 0.2% 1.4 Week 8 3.5% 0.2% 2.2 Week 12 5.3% 0.2% 2.8 Week 14 7.3% Not tested Not tested Week 16 3.8% 0.2% 3.2

7.3.5 Sensory Assessment of Taro Chips stored in 200g packs

Table 13. Results of 200g packs of Taro Chips stored at 20oC without gas flushing

Sample Appearance Odour Texture Flavour point Initial Typical Taro Chip Clean odour Crisp, crunchy Clean, salty texture flavour Week 1 as above as above as above as above Week 2 as above as above as above as above Week 4 as above as above as above as above Week 8 as above as above Crisp and as above crunchy; however the initial bite is not as crisp as the gas flushed chip. Week 12 as above as above Crisp, crunchy; as above; very similar to texture slight stale flavour of gas flushed present chip. Week 14 as above as above as above as above Week 16 as above as above Crisp on initial Flavour is not as bite, but chip is fresh as the 50g not crunchy and packs at 20oC; does not break tastes slightly old; cleanly in the although is still mouth. acceptable.

Table 14. Results of 200g packs of Taro Chips stored at 20oC with gas flushing

Sample Appearance Odour Texture Flavour point Initial Typical Taro Clean odour Crisp, crunchy Clean, salty flavour Chip texture Week 1 as above as above as above as above Week 2 as above as above as above as above Week 4 as above as above as above as above Week 8 as above as above as above; has a as above cleaner, crisper bite/break than non gas flushed 200g chips Week 12 as above as above Crisp, crunchy as above; very texture slight stale flavour present Week 14 as above as above; odour as above Slightly fresher is slightly less flavour than non fresh than non gas flushed sample. gas flushed sample Week 16 as above Clean odour as above; much Clean, salty, crisper than non gas flavour; flavour has flushed 200g chip a fresher note than non gas flushed 200g chip

7.4 Appendix 4 7.4.1 Demographic questionnaire Taro chip demographic questionnaire Code [tba] Please answer all of the following questions by ticking the appropriate box or boxes.

1. What is your gender? Male Female

2. To what age group do you belong?

18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+

3. What is your highest level of education? (tick one only)

Primary school Some high school Completed high school (year 12)

Tertiary - certificate, diploma, degree or postgraduate qualification Other

4. Which brands of chips do you eat? (tick as many as apply)

Lays Samboy Doritos Ajitas Vege Chips Kettle Chips Byron Bay Chilli Co Chips Red Rock Deli Chips Other Thins None of the above Pringles

5. On average, how often do you purchase chips from the following outlets? Please make sure that you make a selection for every column.

Corner/ Bar/ Super Service convenience restaurant/ Other market station store cafe Weekly Monthly Every 2-3 months Every 3-6 months Every 6-12 months Less than once per

year or never

6. On average, how often do you eat the following brands of chips? Please make sure that you make a selection for every column. Byron Bay Chilli Ajitas Vege Kettle chips Pringles Co chips chips Weekly Monthly Every 2-3 months Every 3-6 months Every 6-12 months Less than once per

year or never

7. If a 100 g pack of potato Kettle chips costs approximately $2-2.50, how much would you be willing to pay for the same sized pack of taro chips? (tick one only)

Less than $2 $2-2.50 $2.50-3 $3-3.50 $3.50-4 More than $4

8. What category does your occupation fit into? (tick one only)

Intermediate clerical, sales and Managers and administrators service workers Intermediate production and Professionals transport workers Elementary clerical, sales and service Associate professionals workers Tradesperson and related workers Labourers and related workers Advanced clerical and service workers Other

9. Within what range is your total household income? (tick one only)

Less than $20,000

$20,000-$40,000

$40,000-$60,000

More than $60,000

Do not wish to answer this question

7.5 Appendix 5

7.5.1 Other comments made by consumers

Comments made by consumers regarding what they liked about the taro chip samples: 1.2 – 1.4 mm, 7% salt • Appearance of chip. This chip had more flavour but still not enough. • After eating taste lingers. • Could have done with a little more salt but nice otherwise. • Crunchy. • Enticing aroma. • Fairly bland flavour but like it nevertheless. • Fairly good. • Flavour. • Good size but a bit pale. • It could appeal to older people. • It tastes a bit better. • It was a bit too salty. • Its smooth texture is interesting and it tastes natural and you can see that it has actually come from a real vegetable. • It’s tasty. It’s great for dips, parties etc. They are healthy. • Light and crispy. • Like plain flavour. • Like the flavour, very similar to the other one. Too thin, not salty enough. • Looks natural and healthy. • Looks natural. • More attractive colouring than some of other samples. • Nice and crunchy and with a bit of salt and flavour. • Nil. • No appeal. • Not enough salty, not enough crunchiness. • Nothing. • Nothing really crispy again and that’s a good thing in chips. • Pleasant taste. • Red threads, size and shape. • Salt gave a bit more taste. • Size was good – but far too bland. Seemed oily.

• Smell good, good size. • Some were bland, some saltier. • Taste a little more like how I would expect chips to taste. Yum. • Taste better than first one. • Tasted a little better than the previous samples. Crunchier, too. • Tasted better than it looked. • Tasty. • That it looks more natural than other chips. • The flavour of the taro chip was nice. • The freshness the simple bland taste. • The overall flavour. • The thickness is just right and it’s crunchy. • They are tasty but still a little too oily. • They taste much the same as the others . Could be thicker and lacks salt. They have a more oily taste and texture and I do like them. • Voted the least likely to succeed. • With this sample 489, I think it has got a very nice taste and again has a good size. Also looks fresh. • Yummy.

1.2 – 1.4 mm, 5% salt • A bit fresher than prior sample; and salt content is just right. • A tasty aftertaste, flavour that stays lingers on. • Again like the red threads and the size, plus the shape. • Appearance. • Chip tends to feel a bit gummy after eating. • Create the desire to eat more. • Crunchy. • Crunchy. • Different taste to the first … it was alright. • Don’t leave a greasy feel. • Good level of crispiness and salt. • I like it plain taste. • I liked the saltiness of this sample 512 and the taste. • I liked the way it looked in more of a fan shape.

• I thought it tasted much better than the previous sample. Could be a little thicker and needs a bit more salt, which would bring out the flavour of the taro. • It has a good size. • Leaves mouth good. • Less of a salty taste bit more flavour. • Natural look and flavour. • Nice. • Nice and crunchy, no yucky pastiness. • Nice flavour to it and tasted pretty nice. • Nil. • Not as oily as other samples. • Not as salty but even taste. • Not salty, enough crunchy, good taste. • Nothing. • Nothing. • OK but could with a lift. • Overall improvement on others, better salt level and flavour. • Pretty good overall to match the others. • Taro chips are a required taste. I feel you would have to eat a whole 100 g packet to really appreciate the flavour and taste properly. • Taste crunchiness. • That was the best one. • The appearance (the red lines look pretty cool!) • The crispiness, the simple flavour that goes away and want more the right amount of salt. • These are still not crunchy enough - they are too oily. • They are a tasty filling healthy. • This one had a little bit more flavour but I think it was due to the level of salt. This one had more salt and gave it some more flavour however I still feel that it needs more flavour other than the salty taste. • This sample, very tasty, also good size and crunchy and last but not the least has a really nice texture. • Too bland compared to the others. • You have very crispy chips. • Very tasty alternative to potato crisps.

1.5-1.7 mm, 7% salt • A bit bland.

• A thicker chip and more salty than the others. • Appearance, and quite tasty that one. • Beautiful. • Better thickness - no oily taste. • Crispiness simple taste not oily. • Crunchy. • Decent flavour. • Different from other chips. • Good for diet. • Good on salt. • I found them to be OK but they did taste a bit stale and needing something to bring out the taro flavour more maybe a little thicker and more salt. • I like the natural look of them. • I liked how some of the chips were darker gold brown on the edges - they looked more attractive. • It had a more salty flavour then the others. • It has more salt. • It is very moreish. • It seems a very natural flavour. • It was a bit saltier than the other one but I reckon that it should be a bit more thicker and a bit more larger. • It's salty and has a nice flavour. • Like taste and would make interesting nibbly at party or morning tea. • Like the flavour the crispness, the saltiness, thickness. • More salty than the other two so it had a bit more taste to it. • More flavour than others, more salt, thicker, blunter edges. • Mushroom odour. • Nice amount of salt. • Nice and crunchy but not sharp. • Nice flavour. • Nothing. • Quite a good amount of saltiness. • Salty is good. • Seemed to have more taste. • Shape, size and red threads. • Taste. • Tastes and looks more like a natural and healthy chip.

• Tasty and thicker. • That had more salt. • The chip is crunchy. • The taste is just right. • The texture is great. • They don’t appear to be as oily as the others. The salt level is better too. • They taste alright, same as the first again, I believe. • Thickness a lot better than the other samples. Salt content a lot better too. • Thickness is good. Crunchiness is good. • This one had the best flavour of all chips sampled. Right amount of salt. Like the appearance of the chip. • This one is too salty and less crispy than the first, also a little thicker. • This sample seemed crunchier, less oily, and tastier than all the other samples. • This sample, looks very nice, good size and also have lots of taste. • Very tasty. • Was fairly light snack. • Was slightly more salted than the other samples, which was better. • Would be good for a small snack and if packaging was good could be appealing.

1.5-1.7 mm, 5% salt • A little saltier than last sample. • Bland flavour. • Colour and texture. • Crunchy. • Crunchy makes you want more. • Flavour. • Flavour without oily taste. • Freshness crispiness. • Good flavour, decent texture smells very good. • I like the idea of a taro chip, would probably be nice with dip. • I like the look of them with the redness. • I only liked the saltiness. • I really like the flavour – quite plain and good on salt. • I think this sample is crispier which is what I'd prefer when buying chips. • It has a nice flavour, tastes like sea salt.

• It tastes really nice. I reckon that it is better than the other two. • It was a bit more fatty. • It was crunchy. • Like very much. Love the taste – is a bit different to regular chip, which is something different. • Look more evenly cooked. • Looks and tastes natural. • Nice and salty. • Nice flavour and doesn't seem that unhealthy. • Nice, tasty. • Not salty, crunch. • Not sure. • Not too oily, look like they would be healthy. • Not too salty. • Nothing. • OK – more taste than others. • Pleasant taste. • Size, shape and red threads. • Some of the samples were quite tasty whereas others had no taste at all. • Stale, not crunchy. • Taste good – right level of salt. • Tastiness lingers. • Tasty but not too oily or salty. • The chip’s flavour is just salty enough. The size is big enough to fit nicely in your mouth. • The crunchiness is the best thing about this chip. • The flavour of this chip is very nice, appearance, crunchiness. • The lightness. • The pattern in them. • They taste OK but lack size and salt. But would buy them if size and had more salt content. • They were fresh tasting. • They are not too salty, not too oily, a healthy choice. • Too oily. • Very tasty chip. Full of flavour. • Was crunchy. • Was nice in flavour. • With this taro chip, have good size, look fresh.

• Would be satisfying with a few small adjustments. • Yummy.

Following are comments made by consumers regarding what they disliked about the taro chip samples. 1.2-1.4 mm, 7% salt • A bit bland. • A little too salty. I was expecting to eat quite thick chips because taro is thick and stodgy – I expected a mouthful. • Appearance. • Bit stale, looks too oily. • Bland taste. • Bland, dry, ugly, below average taste and texture. • Could have more flavour. • Could use a little bit more salt. • Far too bland. Seemed oily. • In appearance was a little plain looking. • It looks a bit yucky. • It needs more salt. • It’s bland taste and look of it. • Just a bit too salty. • Just a little more salt, thicker, needs more flavour. • Looked too oily and unevenly cooked. • Maybe a bit too salty. • Not enough salt. • Not enough salt. I don’t like seeing the oiliness and transparency of the chip. • Not enough salty, not enough crunchy. • Not enough taste to the chip. • Not salty enough. Need more flavour. • Not salty, no flavour. The flavour is not strong. • Not tasty enough. Needed more salt. Looked oily or uncooked in parts. Too thin for me and brittle. • Not the best thing I've tasted. • Not thick – no flavour, no salt. • Probably need more salt in this sample and also add a bit of flavour into it. • Quite pale and small tasted a little stale.

• Same as the others. • Seemed a little undercooked. • Some of these also appear to the uneducated person to be unevenly cooked. • Sticks to your teeth long after you have finished. • Still a little too oily for my liking, especially if I had to eat a lot of them. • Taste like it was fried in yesterday’s oil, not salty enough, or not fresh and too thin. • Tasted overcooked. • Tasteless. • Tastes a bit oily and not salty enough. • The uneven appearance within the sample. One chip looked not oily. The other looked really oily. • These were different to the first two. This one was way more bland. I think that just eating them alone is not too exciting, however I think they would make a good dip/salsa chip. • They are not big enough and need more salt. • They seemed smaller then others. • They could be a bit thicker so as not to be cutting into the mouth – the texture is a bit hard. • Too plain, really had no flavour at all and need more salt • Too salty. • Too salty and not enough flavour. Appearance is not good but main thing is too salty. • Too thin, not salty enough. • Want bigger and thicker pieces so oily taste is less obvious. • Was a little thinner and looked oilier and not as crunchy as last sample. Was bland, stale and oily.

1.2-1.4 mm, 5% salt • A bit of a nothingness taste afterwards. Not very distinctive in their flavour. • A bit of an after taste. • A bit too salty - I want to be able to taste the taro not the salt. • Again with the staleness! What is the go there? Are they old chips? • Bad texture, strange looking. • Chip feels gummy in mouth after eating. • Cooked longer in fat! • Could be a tad bit saltier. • Could have more flavour added and less oiliness. • Don’t like look of it or taste really. • Flavour a bit bland, not salty enough. Too thin.

• Flavour a bit bland – needs a lot more salt and appearance is lacking again. • I couldn’t find anything to dislike about the sample. • I found them to be quite nice and would probably buy them as something different to offer. • It tastes like nothing. • It was a little too oily. • It’s a bit oily. • It’s like eating a wafer of oil with a hint of salt. • Just the oily appearance, and needs more salt. • Looks like ants crawling around on it. • More salt and crispiness. • Need more salt. • Needs more flavour. • Needs more salt. • Nil. • No flavour too thin. • No flavour and oily. • None. • Not a lot of taste. • Not as salty – just like the last test. • Not crunchy enough. • Not enough salt. • Not enough salt on them and they stick to your teeth. • Not salty enough and not thick or crunchy enough. • Not salty enough, no taste. • Not salty enough, still has the wheat appearance and it looks not cooked. • Not very salty, a little bland. • Oily and not much flavour apart from the little salt. • Portions could be bigger and slightly thicker and crispier. • Probably not appealing to children. • Seems to be too much oil – did not like appearance. Chips a bit thin. • Slightly too oily. • Some were very bland while others had a very nice taste to them. • Stale taste, not salty enough. • Sticks to your teeth. • Sticky.

• The bland taste, the size, and bad after taste. • The colour contrast between the outer dark colour and the paleness of the chip in comparison. Prefer smaller difference in colour, otherwise looks like the chip was overcooked on the outer and undercooked on the inner. • They seemed to lack flavour. • They are a bit sharp on the corners – the look would not appeal to children, being too speckled. • This one was too thin and oily tasting. • Too doughy tasting. • Too oily. • Too bland, not enough salt. • Too crunchy, a little small. • Too oily and not crunchy enough. • Too pale, thin and small. • Very bland, needs way more flavour. • Was not thick enough to give a good crunch or mouthful.

1.5-1.7 mm, 7% salt • A bit salty. • A bit stale. • A bit too thick, got stuck in my teeth. • A bit too much salt on some parts and tastes a bit stale. • Appearance. • Chip is not thick enough – too thin and brittle. • Could be less oily. • Doesn't smell as good as the others. Too thick. • Even though it was saltier then the others I thought it was too salty and too thick. • Except for a higher salt content, they seem to taste like salt and nothing else, but oil. • Had that initial crunch but then went to a paste. Maybe it was the thickness. • Has a cardboard texture. • I found them to be a bit stale but still OK to eat. • It got stuck in my teeth. • It's too thin. • Just the look is too flecky. Will the look appeal to children? Could be blended – not too spotty, flecky. • Needs more flavour or salt. • Needs to be more crisp – chip seems too soft.

• No real thickness to it. • Not a lot of flavour – could have flavour added. • Not crunchy enough – tasted a bit stale. • Not enough salt. • Not enough salt. • Not salty enough, not big enough. • Not thick enough. • Not thick, needs flavour. • Not very appealing to the eye. • Nothing. • Nothing really. • Nothing really. • Nothing to dislike. • Nothing. • Oily aftertaste. • Probably just a shade too oily. • Seems oily, not sharp taste. • Slightly bland compared with the first sample but still delicious. • Some bits were really salty and other bits not. • Some chips quite salty, others have no salt and are bland. • Some chips were saltier then other. • Some of the sample had too much salt where others had none at all. • Stale taste, not salty enough. • Stale tasting and too salty. • Still looks like ants crawling around. • Still taste stale, not crunchy enough. • Taste too salty, plastic and artificial. Overly processed like Samboy chips. I feel like I am eating something fattening and over-processed. Think more about what I don’t like rather than what I do like. • Tasteless. • The salt was too chunky and there was too much on them. They stuck in your teeth. • They are all just way too stale tasting. • Too pale and more starchy than other samples. • Too salty and perhaps sticks in the teeth a bit. • Too salty, little big. • Uneven oil patches.

• Very bland chip. • Was still stale and left oily feel in mouth. • When I smelled the chip I couldn't smell a thing.

1.5-1.7 mm, 5% salt • A little bit chewy. • A little gummy in mouth once chewed, but not more than other chips. • A little sticky. • A little thicker. • About this taro chip… I think it has no taste, also not enough salt in it, and last but not the least, it’s very sticky. • Appear too pale and uncooked – pasty taste in mouth. • Appearance. • Brittleness as opposed to crunchiness. Didn’t like the smell as it seemed stale – bit of a turnoff. Brittleness hurts my gums due to the sharpness when I bite into them. • Did not like the texture – tasted like it was under cooked. • Find it a bit small and a bit too thin. • It was too bland. • Just like the first one ... I'm convinced it is the same chip. Way too stale tasting and bland. • Lack of salt or flavour – it was the natural flavour of taro chips. • Lacked salt content and wasn't quite crunchy enough. • Needs a bit more salt, needs to be thicker. • Needs more flavour. • Needs some more salt and colour. • No flavour. Too thin. Doesn’t make me want more. • None. • Not a lot. • Not a lot of flavour. Could have more flavour. • Not crispy enough, also not thick enough. • Not enough salt. • Not enough flavour or salt. • Not enough flavour or salt. Very bland in taste. Need to do something with the appearance of the chip as well. • Not enough salt on some and it looked oily. • Not much flavour but still yum. • Not salty enough.

• Not so thick and a little more salt, only a little bit more though. • Sometimes not crunchy. Looks a little uncooked. • Nothing really. • Nothing to dislike in the sample. • Oily. • Oily and stale texture left on the palate. • Slightly bigger pieces and must be crunchier. • Stale, not crunchy. • Stale taste, not salty enough. • Sticks to my teeth, and has quite an oily after taste. • Still too chewy. Sticks to teeth. Sharp on corners. The look could be blended in colour. • Texture – brittle and hard, more than crunchy. • The other samples were much more tasty. • There is nothing I dislike. • They don’t look too appealing. • They were OK – much nicer than the first lot of chips I tasted. • Thickness. • Too thin. • Too oily and bland. Tasted stale as if it had been left out for hours. • Too salty and too thin. • Too sticky. • Under-cooked looking and not salty enough. • Uneven oil distribution on some chips.