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 OKeefe, 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

 2005 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

All rights reserved.

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 OKeefe
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries
PO Box 1085
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
Phone:
07 4722 2689
Fax:
07 4778 2036
Email:
vic.okeefe@dpi.qld.gov.au
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:
Fax:
Email:
Website:

02 6272 4819
02 6272 5877
rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.
http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Published in September 2005

Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

ii

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 RIRDCs 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 OBrien
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.

iv

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
Appendix 5 .............................................................................................................................. 82
7.5

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 Arnotts 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 products 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.

vi

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 10C 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 180-185C 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 90C 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 4C and 10C over a period of two weeks, with chips being produced
initially, after one weeks storage and after two weeks storage. The results of this storage trial
showed that taro corms can be stored for one week at either 4C or 10C 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 10C than occurred in the taro stored at 4C.
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 20C and 30C. 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
Segment
Potato chips
Corn chips
Extruded
Mixed packs
Miscellaneous
Pretzels
Total

Australian salty snack segment shares

2001 value share
2001 volume share
$276.9m (56.8%)
21 044 tonnes (53.3%)
$ 72.1m (14.8%)
7 322 tonnes (18.6%)
$ 68.6m (14.1%)
5 751 tonnes (14.6%)
$ 37.9m (7.8%)
2 672 tonnes (6.8%)
$ 22.3m (4.6%)
1 695 tonnes (4.3%)
$ 9.7m (2.0%)
985 tonnes (2.5%)
$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 worlds biggest salty snack company)
Arnotts 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. Campbells Soup Company (Arnotts parent company) and Pepsico (Smiths
parent company) are ranked 9th and 21st respectively in Australias 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
Company

Salty snack brands

Smiths

Arnotts Snack Foods

Proctor and Gamble

Others

Brand

Type of product

Smiths Crisps
Lays
Red Rock Deli
Doritos
Burger Rings
Twisties
Cheetos
Parkers
Samboy
Thins
Kettle Chips
CCs
Cheezels
Colvan
Rix
French Fries
Pringles
Freers1

Corrugated potato chips

Flat sliced potato chips
Premium potato chips
Corn chips
Extruded
Extruded cheese flavour
Extruded cheese and bacon flavour
Pretzels
Corrugated potato chips
Flat sliced potato chips
Premium potato chips
Corn chips
Extruded cheese flavour.
Potato chip and extruded.
Rice crackers
Potato french fries
Flat extruded potato chips
Extruded chip, corrugated potato chip and
flat sliced baked potato chips
Rice snacks
Corrugated potato chips

Sakata
Real McCoy Snack
Food Co
Ajitas
Byron Bay Chilli Co

Note:
1

Extruded cassava chips

Corn chips

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 states 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 nations 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
IGA

North Queensland1

Queensland

Nationally

34

170

1110

20

164

540

13

72

260

AUR

3
4

5 Star Spar

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 Arnotts. 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
Coles/Woolworths

Disadvantages

National coverage

Supply requirements (significant

volumes required to service national
distribution)

Warehousing
facilities/infrastructure

Resources required to manage/maintain

trade

Market share

Promotional budget required to

maintain share

Perceived as being vendor

friendly

Under increasing pressure from chains

with every day low prices

(Direct)

Independent supermarkets

Stores individually owned and

operated
Decision making power at store
level
Brokers/wholesalers

C-stores

Access to
retailing/merchandising expertise

Lack of market share. Top five

brokers/distributors control less than
30% of domestic market

Manufacturer able to focus on

production

Intimate knowledge of individual

products

Recognised as providing good

margins

High maintenance to service large

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 Kettles
unique authentic cooked process
A truly mouth-watering chip unlike anything youve tasted before!
Slowly cooked in sunflower oil, theyre 100% cholesterol free! Plus we use only natural
ingredients no artificial colours, flavours, preservatives or MSG!
35.1 g of fat per 100 g.

10

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.

11

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).

12

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
CCs Tasty Cheese Corn Chips
Crackers (rice Sakata)
Nuts (cashew)
Chips (potato Red Rock Deli)
Ajitas Vege Chips
Pringles

13

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 theyre 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 cant 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 dont know the
difference.
During discussions participants recited a number of jingles from advertising campaigns for a number
of salty snacks.

14

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 wasnt an issue, the following comments were
made:
It depends on the occasion. If Im entertaining guests I use the fat = flavour rule.
If Im in the mood to treat myself, Ill buy the naughtiest snack I can.
Im treating myself, its my junk stuff.
Flavour is more important.
I know its bad for me but Im going to eat it anyway.
97% fat free, no flavour though.
Im not eating chips everyday.
I know about the info (nutritional panel) on packs. I dont read it though.
I dont believe there is such a thing as a healthy chip, I know they are bad for me but I dont 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.
CCs, 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.

15

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 shouldnt have to pay more!
Maybe a product that was acceptable for the whole family.
I cant answer (that) question. Im 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.

16

Design 1

Design 4

Design 2

Design 5

Design 7

17

Design 3

Design 6

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:
Im 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 didnt know the taro leaf looks like that.
Branding by location
Focus group participants were shown a packet of Byron Bay Chilli Cos 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 cant see any value in promoting this product based on the specific location where it is produced.
I dont 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 dont know what it means but it is catchy.
Promote them as a grown-up snack. These arent chippies for the kids.
Have an adult theme. Get rid of the term chips and use snacks or taros instead.
Location has no impact, its 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 groups reaction to using sea salt as an ingredient as opposed to iodised salt.
Comments included:
I suppose anything more natural is an advantage.
Its a yuppie thing, sea salt.
There are concerns from consumers about processed salt. People are worried about iodised.
Lightly salted sounds good, overall its not an issue for me.
Other additives in products are more of an issue than the salt itself.

18

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 Im buying for two people.
Needs to be relative to the competition; cant 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.
Its hard to say. There is so much variation and discounting between shops and supermarkets.
If you like them youll 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.
Doesnt do anything for me.
It just tastes like a chip to me.
I still dont know what taro tastes like.
Its the visual that draws me to it.
Its still a chip.

19

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 chips 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 werent 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.

20

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 clients 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.

21

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
Raw product ratio (3:1)

2.50
3

Raw product (kg)

6 000

Processed chips (kg)

2 000

Percentage of 75 g bags

0%

Percentage of 100 g bags

40%

8 000

Percentage of 150 g bags

0%

Percentage of 200 g bags

60%

6 000

Total bags for sale =>

14 000

<= bags

<= bags
-

<= bags
<= bags

Number of months 1

Sales (wholesale prices)

Bag numbers per year
Price per bag ($/75 g)

1.20

Price per bag ($/100 g)

1.74

Price per bag ($/150 g)

2.00

Price per bag ($/200 g)

2.50

13 920

<= $ sales
-

15 000

Total sales => $ 28 920

22

<= $ sales

<= $ sales
<= $ sales

Unit

Total

Unit price

$/kg chips

Cost of raw products

Chips production (kg) (ratio 3:1)

2 000

Fresh taro in kg

6 000

2.50

15 000

Oil in litre

600

1.60

960

Salt in kg

40

0.60

24

15 984

Total raw product

7.50
0.48
0.01
7.99

Processing
Labour hours
Collecting (driver and ute) (hr)

10

30

300

Washing/peeling (rough) (hr)

30

18

540

Peeling (finish) and slicing (hr)

30

18

540

Cooking and drying (hr)

30

18

540

Sales costs in labour hours (hr)

Packing, handling, loading (hr)

18

18

324

Distribution (salesperson and van) (hr)

28

30

840

3 084

19 068

Total labour

Total production costs

0.15
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.00

0.16
0.42
1.54

9.53

Cost of packaging
Bags 75 g
Bag 100 g

8 000.00

Bag 150 g
Bag 200 g

6 000.00

Bag xxx g
Carton boxes

733

Total packaging

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.15

0.90

660

2 360

0.40

800

0.00

0.45

900

0.00

Total costs ($/kg)

=>

23

0.00

Total costs ($)

=> $

21 428

Surplus/deficit
=> $

7 492

0.33
1.18

10.71

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

24

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
Raw product (ratio 3:1)

$1.50
3

Raw product (kg)

6 000

Processed chips (kg)

2 000

Percentage of 75 g bags

0%

Percentage of 100 g bags

40%

Percentage of 150 g bags

0%

Percentage of 200 g bags

60%

8 000

<= bags
<= bags

6 000

<= bags
<= 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

Price per bag ($/100 g)

1.74

Price per bag ($/150 g)

2.00

Price per bag ($/200 g)

2.50

13 920

<= $ sales
-

15 000

Total sales => $ 28 920

25

<= $ sales

<= $ sales
<= $ sales

Unit

Total

Unit price

$/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

$ 9 984

4.99

Total raw product

Processing
Labour hours
Collecting (driver and ute) (hr)

10

30

300

0.15

Washing/peeling (rough) (hr)

30

18

540

0.27

Peeling (finish) and slicing (hr)

30

18

540

0.27

Cooking and drying (hr)

30

18

540

0.27

Sales costs in hour (hr)

Packing, handling, loading (hr)

18

18

324

0.16

Distribution (salesperson and van) (hr)

28

30

840

0.42

$ 3 084

1.54

$ 13 068

6.53

Total labour

Total production costs

0.00

Cost of packaging
Bags 75 g

0.08

Bag 100 g

8 000

0.10

Bag 150 g

0.12

Bag 200 g

6 000

Bag xxx g
Carton boxes

733

Total packaging

0.15

0.90

800

0.40
-

0.00

900

0.45
-

0.00

660

0.33

$ 2 360

1.18

Total costs
($/kg) =>

Total costs ($)

=> $ 15 428
Surplus/deficit
=> $ 13 492

26

0.00

7.71

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)

Net revenue

Fixed cost

Variable cost

Total cost

Total profit

6 000

kg/month
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.

27

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 10C 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

28

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
185-190C for times varying between 45 and 90 seconds. The chips were stirred with a longhandled 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 180-185C 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 12month-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-monthold taro used in Trial 1. Figure 1C shows the typical appearance of the 12-month-old taro chips.

29

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 pretreatments 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
180-185C.
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 90C 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 90C 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.

30

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 90c 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 ninemonth-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 185-190C.
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

31

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.

32

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 185-187C 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 0.85mm1.15mm. 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.

33

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
185-190C 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

A Top
A Middle
B Top
B Middle
C Top
C Middle

Moisture
%

Fructose
g/100 g

Glucose
g/100 g

Sucrose
g/100 g

71.8
83.9
73.7
63.7
68.3
67.9

0.3
1.1
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.5

0.4
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.6

<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Total
sugar
g/100 g
0.7
2.3
1.7
0.7
1.3
1.1

Reducing
sugars
g/100 g
0.7
2.3
1.7
0.7
1.3
1.1

Starch
g/100 g
15.1
7.5
12.8
24.1
18.6
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.

34

 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.

35

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 185-190C 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).

36

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

G Top
G Middle
H Top
H Middle
I Top
I Middle
Average top
Average
middle

Moisture
%

Fructose
g/100 g

Glucose
g/100 g

Sucrose
g/100 g

68.7
67.0
70.8
68.6
71.4
65.5
70.3
67.0

0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.25
0.2

0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.3

0.6
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.9

37

Total
sugars
g/100 g
1.5
1.4
0.9
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4

Reducing
sugars
g/100 g

Starch
g/100 g

0.9
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5

19.5
25.1
18.6
20.6
20.2
26.4
19.4
24.0

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 4C and 10C 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 weeks storage at either 4C or 10C.
Figures 18C and 19C show, after two weeks storage at 4C and 10C, 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.

38

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 weeks storage at 10C (samples L and
M).

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

39

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

Figure 19C Chips made from Batch 6 taro after two weeks storage at 4C (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 4C
and 10C.
Sample

Storage
temperature

Tops
Middles
Tops
Middles
Tops
Middles
Tops
Middles
Tops
Middles

Initial

Storage
time

10C

One week

4C

One week

10C

Two weeks

4C

Two weeks

Moisture
(%)

Total sugars
(g/100 g)

73.4
66.7
72.0
66.1
74.6
66.6
67.45
66.45
70.6
67.5

0.4
0.5
0.75
1.0
0.75
0.8
0.8
0.85
1.25
0.6

40

Reducing
sugars
(g/100 g)
0.3
0.45
0.55
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.65
0.5

Starch
(g/100 g)
14.4
18.45
15.4
18.9
14.1
19.75
9.4
12.7
7.15
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.

40
35
30

25

4C sample total solids

4C sample starch content

20

10C sample total solids

10C starch content

15
10
5
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.

40
35
30

25

4C sample total solids

4C sample starch content

20

10C sample total solids

10C starch content

15
10
5
0
0 weeks

1 week

2 weeks

Time

41

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

1
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

1
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

42

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
4C samples and an 8% reduction for the 10C 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 4C product and 35% for the 10C product.
The middles showed a reduction of 33% compared to the initial samples for the 4C product and
31% for the 10C 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 4C and 10C samples. By week 2, the total sugar
content of the 4C samples had increased by 212% compared to initial results and the 10C 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
4C samples and 83% for the 10C samples. By week 2, the reducing sugar content had increased by
115% compared to initial results for the 4C and the 10C 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 4C and 10C samples, respectively.
By week 2, the total sugar content of the samples had decreased from week 1 levels. The 4C
samples had increased by 20% compared to initial results and the 10C 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 4C and 10C samples. By week 2, the total
sugar content of the samples had decreased from week 1 levels. The 4C samples had increased by
only 11% compared to initial results and the 10C 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 4C or 10C
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 10C than occurred in the taro stored at 4C.

43

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 185C 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 subquality 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

44

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
e g/100
g

Glucose
g/100 g

Sucrose
g/100 g

Maltose
g/100 g

Total
sugars/100 g

Reducing
sugars
g/100 g

Starch
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.

45

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.
Moisture
(%)

Fructose
g/100 g

Glucose
g/100 g

Sucrose
g/100 g

Maltose
g/100 g

Total sugars
g/100 g

Reducing
sugars
g/100 g

Starch
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

Sample

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.

46

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.
Moisture
(%)

Fructose
g/100g

Glucose
g/100g

Sucrose
g/100g

Maltose
g/100g

Total sugar
g/100 g

Reducing
sugar
g/100 g

Starch
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

Sample

47

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

Sucrose
g/100 g

Maltose
g/100 g

Total
sugar
g/100 g

Reducing
sugar
g/100 g

Starch
g/100 g

0.2

<0.1

<0.1

0.3

0.3

16.7

0.2

0.2

<0.1

<0.1

0.4

0.4

15.8

74.2

0.2

0.2

<0.1

<0.1

0.4

0.4

15.6

71.7

0.2

0.3

<0.1

<0.1

0.5

0.5

15.5

Moisture
(%)

Fructose
g/100 g

A5 Top

74.9

0.1

A5 Middle

71.6

A6 Top
A6 Middle

Glucose
g/100 g

48

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 subquality 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-ofseason 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.

49

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
g/100 g

67.8

0.4

65.7

0.3

Glucose
g/100 g
0.5
0.4

Sucrose
g/100 g

Maltose
g/100 g

Total sugar
g/100 g

Reducing
sugar
g/100 g

Starch
g/100 g

0.2

<0.1

1.1

0.9

18.3

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.

50

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).

51

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
(g)

2 October
6 October
7 October

5 150
12 262
13 693

After peeling
and docking
(g)
4 704
9 602
10 253

Raw slices
(g)
3 600
8 700
10 200

Cooked,
salted chips
(g)
1 580
3 890
4 670

Final product
(g)
1 480
3 635
4 145

Table 10C Yield of each chip-processing step.

Batch
2 October
6 October
7 October

Peeling and
docking (%)

Slicing (%)

Cooking (%)

91.3
78.3
74.9

76.5
90.6
99.9

43.9
44.7
45.8

Sorting
(%)
93.7
93.4
88.8

Overall yield
28.7
29.6
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.

52

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 Petiniauds 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
2
transmission rate of 100cc/m /24 hours (25C; 45% relative humidity) and a water vapour

53

transmission rate of 1.5g/m /24 hours (38C; 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

54

Table 12C Testing regime for storage trial of taro chips.

Test

Initial

Week
Week
1
2
50 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 20C
9
Moisture content
9
9
9
Free fatty acids
9
9
9
Peroxide value
9
9
9
Sensory
assessment
50 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 30C
Moisture content
9
9
Free fatty acids
9
9
Peroxide value
9
9
Sensory
assessment
50 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 20C
Moisture content
9
9
Free fatty acids
9
9
Peroxide value
9
9
Sensory
assessment
50 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 30C
Moisture content
9
9
Free fatty acids
9
9
Peroxide value
9
9
Sensory
assessment
100 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 20C
Sensory
assessment
100 g pack: Gas flushing and stored at 20C
Sensory
assessment
200 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 20C
Moisture content
9
9
Free fatty acids
9
9
Peroxide value
9
9
Sensory
assessment
200 g pack: No gas flushing and stored at 20C
Moisture content
9
9
Free fatty acids
9
9
Peroxide value
9
9
Sensory
assessment

Week
4

Week
8

Week
12

Week
14

Week
16

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

55

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

9
9
9
9

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.

56

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.
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.

57

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.
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 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.

58

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.

59

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 (14) 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.

60

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))

61

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

(0)

(50)

like extremely
(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

(0)

just right
(50)

too salty
(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.

62

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
(n=72)

47%

18%

18%

14%

3%

Table 2D What is your highest level of education?

Percentage
(n=72)

Primary school

Some high
school

Completed high
school (year 12)

Tertiary

Other

1%

21%

28%

50%

0%

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?

Percentage
(n=72)

Percentage

Lays

Doritos

Kettle Chips

Red Rock
Deli Chips

Thins

Pringles

79%

82%

81%

7%

76%

75%

Samboy

Ajitas Vege
Chips

Byron Bay
Chilli Co
Chips

Other

None

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.

63

Table 4D On average, how often do you purchase chips from the following outlets?
Supermarket

Corner/
convenience store

Service
station

Bar/restaurant/
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

year or never

4%

18%

29%

67%

70%

Frequency (n=72)

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?
Kettle Chips

Byron Bay
Chilli Co Chips

Pringles

Ajitas Vege
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%

Frequency (n=72)

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?

Percentage
(n=72)

Less than
$2

$2-$2.50

$2.50-$3

$3-$3.50

$3.50-$4

More than
$4

22%

64%

13%

1%

0%

0%

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.

64

Table 7D What category does your occupation fit into?

Percentag
e (n=72)

Percentag
e (n=72)

Mangers/
administrators

Professionals

Associate
professionals

Tradesperson and
related
workers

6%

10%

1%

8%

3%

Intermediate
clerical, sales
and service
workers

Intermediate
production and
transport
workers

Elementary
clerical, sales
and service
workers

Labourers
and related
workers

Other

10%

1%

7%

3%

51%

Advanced
clerical and
service
workers

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?

Percentage
(n=72)

Less than
$20,000

$20,000 $40,000

$40,000 $60,000

More than
$60,000

Do not wish
to answer this
question

22%

29%

24%

11%

14%

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
1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7%
salt addition
1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5%
salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with 7%
salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with 5%
salt addition
Least significant difference
(LSD) (P=0.05)

Appearance
(ns)

Odour
ns)

Flavour
(ns)

Texture
(ns)

Overall
(ns)

53

59

52

55

53

54

61

54

58

53

55

58

55

54

56

53

59

57

54

56

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

65

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
1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7%
salt addition
1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5%
salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with 7%
salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with 5%
salt addition
Least significant difference
(LSD) (P=0.05)

Saltiness*

Size
(ns)

Thickness*

Crunchiness
(ns)

40b

42

37a

42

30a

43

36a

44

52c

44

45c

42

40b

42

41b

41

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 1.51.75 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 1.51.75 mm thick samples slightly more than the 1.21.4 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.

66

Table 11D Odour standard descriptors.

Sample

Fresh

Stale

Oily

Other

None of the
above

50%

11%

49%

17%

8%

58%

7%

50%

14%

3%

63%

4%

35%

17%

10%

60%

10%

38%

11%

4%

1.2-1.4 mm thick with 7%

salt addition
1.2-1.4 mm thick with 5%
salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with
7% salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with
5% salt addition

Table 12D Appearance standard descriptors.

Sample
1.2 - 1.4 mm
thick with 7%
salt addition
1.2 - 1.4 mm
thick with 5%
salt addition
1.5 - 1.75 mm
thick with 7%
salt addition
1.5 -1.75 mm
thick with 5%
salt addition

Natural

Processed/
Manu
factured

Oily

Pale

Dark

Evenly
cooked

Not
evenly
cooked

Other

None of
the
above

49%

11%

43%

44%

1%

24%

49%

4%

0%

53%

14%

49%

26%

8%

29%

36%

7%

0%

54%

13%

28%

58%

1%

31%

31%

6%

0%

58%

10%

28%

61%

1%

22%

40%

1%

0%

Table 13D Flavour standard descriptors.

Sample
1.2-1.4 mm thick with
7% salt addition
1.2-1.4 mm thick with
5% salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with
7% salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with
5% salt addition

Bland

Tasty

Oily

Fresh

Stale

Other

None of
the above

46%

35%

35%

35%

19%

10%

3%

68%

21%

32%

31%

17%

11%

1%

32%

44%

18%

28%

24%

18%

1%

58%

29%

19%

38%

22%

6%

1%

67

Table 14D Texture standard descriptors.

Sample
1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with
7% salt addition
1.2 - 1.4 mm thick with
5% salt addition
1.5 - 1.75 mm thick
with 7% salt addition
1.5 -1.75 mm thick
with 5% salt addition

Crispy

Brittle

Pasty

Sticky

Oily
mouthfeel

No oily
mouthfeel

Other

None of
the
above

68%

25%

22%

14%

29%

32%

8%

0%

65%

22%

29%

11%

28%

35%

4%

1%

68%

17%

32%

8%

21%

36%

10%

0%

64%

22%

35%

10%

18%

39%

6%

0%

Table 15D How likely or unlikely are you to purchase these taro chips if they cost $3 per 100 g
pack?
Sample
1.2-1.4 mm thick with
7% salt addition
1.2-1.4 mm thick with
5% salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with
7% salt addition
1.5-1.75 mm thick with
5% salt addition

Definitely
would buy

Probably
would buy

Undecided

Probably
would not
buy

Definitely
would not buy

3%

25%

22%

32%

18%

6%

17%

25%

35%

18%

8%

28%

25%

22%

17%

8%

22%

24%

32%

14%

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.

68

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 Arnotts. Potato chips account for
more than 55% of the categorys 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 werent willing to
pay any more than the price of existing substitute salty snack products.

69

7.

Appendices

7.1

Appendix 1

7.1.1

Analytical results of taro corms after 0, 1 and 2 weeks of storage at 4C and 10C

Sample
J Top
J Middle
K Top
K Middle
L Top
L Middle
M Top
M Middle
N Top
N Middle
O Top
O Middle
P Top
P Middle
Q Top
Q Middle
R Top
R Middle
S Top
S Middle

Storage
Temp.

Storage
Time
Initial

10C

1 week

4C

1 week

10C

2 weeks

4C

2 weeks

Moisture
%
74.0
67.0
72.7
66.3
75.4
65.5
68.5
66.7
71.8
66.9
77.5
66.2
68.7
64.5
66.2
68.4
68.1
67.6
73.1
67.3

Fructose
g/100g
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

Glucose
g/100g
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

70

Sucrose
g/100g
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
<0.1
1.0
0.2

Maltose
g/100g
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Total sugar
g/100 g
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.6
1.5
0.6

Reducing sugars
g/100 g
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4

Starch
g/100g
14.8
18.5
13.9
18.4
12.5
20.3
18.2
17.5
15.4
18.1
12.8
21.4
9.1
14.1
9.7
11.3
7.9
13.2
6.4
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.

71

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

72

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

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

4.7%

Free fatty acids

(as oleic acid)
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
Not tested
0.2%

4.6%
5.4%
4.4%
3.6%
4.9%

Peroxide Value
(meq/kg oil)
2.2
1.1
0.9
1.9
2.9
3.7
Not tested
2.9

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

Moisture content

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

4.7%

Free fatty acids

(as oleic acid)
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
Not tested
0.2%

4.8%
4.2%
4.8%
4.2%
4.7%

Peroxide Value
(meq/kg oil)
2.2
1.1
2.7
2.0
5.1
6.0
Not tested
9.6

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

Moisture content

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

4.7%

Free fatty acids

(as oleic acid)
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Not tested
0.3%

5.1%
4.9%
5.0%
4.1%
5.1%

Peroxide Value
(meq/kg oil)
2.2
0.9
1.5
2.3
2.9
3.4
Not tested
3.8

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

Moisture content

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

4.7%

Free fatty acids

(as oleic acid)
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Not tested
0.3%

4.3%
4.6%
4.7%
3.3%
4.4%

73

Peroxide Value
(meq/kg oil)
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.9
3.5
8.2
Not tested
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
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

Typical Taro Chip

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

Clean odour
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
Slightly oily odour, although
still acceptable

Crisp, crunchy texture

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

Clean, salty flavour

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

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

Appearance

Odour

Texture

Flavour

Initial
Week 1
Week 2

Typical Taro Chip

as above
as above

Clean odour
as above
as above

Clean, salty flavour

as above
as above

Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

as above
as above
as above
as above
Slightly oily odour, although
still acceptable

Crisp, crunchy texture

as above
Texture seems slightly crisper
than non gas flushed taro chip
stored at 20oC.
Crisp, crunchy texture
as above
as above
as above
Crisp, crunchy texture; very
similar to the texture of the
samples that were not gas
flushed.

74

as above
as above
as above
as above
Clean, salty flavour; taste
slightly fresher than the 20oC
samples which were not gas
flushed.

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

Appearance

Odour

Texture

Flavour

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12

Typical Taro Chip

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

Clean odour
as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

Crisp, crunchy texture

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

Week 14
Week 16

as above
as above

Slightly stale odour

Slightly oily odour, although
still acceptable

as above
as above; similar to the
texture of the 20oC sample.

Clean, salty flavour

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above; very slight stale
flavour noted.
as above
Slightly fishy aftertaste; NOT
ACCEPTABLE

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

Appearance

Odour

Texture

Flavour

Initial
Week 1
Week 2

Typical Taro Chip

as above
as above

Clean odour
as above
as above

Clean, salty flavour

as above
as above

Week 4
Week 8
Week 12

as above
as above
as above

as above
as above
as above

Crisp, crunchy texture

as above
Texture seems slightly crisper
than non gas flushed taro chip
stored at 30oC.
Crisp, crunchy texture
as above
as above

Week 14
Week 16

as above
as above

Slightly stale odour

Slightly oily odour, although
still acceptable

75

as above
Crisp, crunchy texture;
cleaner bite/break than non
gas flushed 30oC sample.

as above
as above
As above; very slight stale
flavour, this is less intense
than non gas flushed sample.
as above
Taste old and tired compared
to the 20oC sample; however
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
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

Typical Taro Chip

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above

Clean odour
as above
as above
as above
as above
Slightly stale odour

Crisp, crunchy texture

as above
as above
as above
as above
as above; not as crisp as gas
flushed sample

Clean, salty flavour

as above
as above
as above
as above
Flavour is not as fresh as the
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
Week 4

Typical Taro Chip

as above

Clean odour
as above

Clean, salty flavour

as above

Week 8
Week 12
Week 14

as above
as above
as above

as above
as above
as above

Crisp, crunchy texture

Crisp, crunchy texture;
slightly cleaner break/bite
than non gas flushed sample.
as above
Crisp, crunchy texture
as above

Week 16

as above

as above

as above

76

as above
as above
Slightly fresher flavour than
non gas flushed sample.
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

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

4.7%

Free fatty acids

(as oleic acid)
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Not tested
0.2%

6.3%
5.3%
5.4%
3.6%
6.5%

Peroxide Value
(meq/kg oil)
2.2
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.5
2.9
Not tested
2.6

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

Moisture content

Initial
Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8
Week 12
Week 14
Week 16

4.7%

Free fatty acids

(as oleic acid)
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Not tested
0.2%

6.4%
3.5%
5.3%
7.3%
3.8%

77

Peroxide Value
(meq/kg oil)
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.2
2.8
Not tested
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
point

Appearance

Odour

Texture

Flavour

Initial

Typical Taro Chip

Clean odour

Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8

as above
as above
as above
as above

as above
as above
as above
as above

Clean, salty
flavour
as above
as above
as above
as above

Week 12

as above

as above

Week 14
Week 16

as above
as above

as above
as above

Crisp, crunchy
texture
as above
as above
as above
Crisp and
crunchy;
however the
initial bite is not
as crisp as the
gas flushed chip.
Crisp, crunchy;
similar to texture
of gas flushed
chip.
as above
Crisp on initial
bite, but chip is
not crunchy and
does not break
cleanly in the
mouth.

78

as above; very
slight stale flavour
present
as above
Flavour is not as
fresh as the 50g
packs at 20oC;
tastes slightly old;
although is still
acceptable.

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

Appearance

Odour

Texture

Flavour

Initial

Clean odour
as above
as above
as above
as above

Week 12

as above

as above

Crisp, crunchy
texture
as above
as above
as above
as above; has a
cleaner, crisper
bite/break than non
gas flushed 200g
chips
Crisp, crunchy
texture

Clean, salty flavour

Week 1
Week 2
Week 4
Week 8

Typical Taro
Chip
as above
as above
as above
as above

Week 14

as above

Week 16

as above

as above; odour
is slightly less
fresh than non
gas flushed
sample
Clean odour

79

as above

as above; much
crisper than non gas
flushed 200g chip

as above
as above
as above
as above

as above; very
slight stale flavour
present
Slightly fresher
flavour than non
gas flushed sample.

Clean, salty,
flavour; flavour has
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.

Super
market

Corner/
convenience
store

Weekly
Monthly
Every 2-3 months
Every 3-6 months
Every 6-12 months
Less than once per
year or never

80

Service
station

Bar/
restaurant/
cafe

Other

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)
Managers and administrators

Intermediate clerical, sales and

service workers

Professionals

Intermediate production and

transport workers

Associate professionals

Elementary clerical, sales and service

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

81

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.
Its tasty. Its 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 thats 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.

82

 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 its 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.
Dont 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.

83

 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.
84

 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.
85

 Tasty and thicker.

That had more salt.
The chip is crunchy.
The taste is just right.
The texture is great.
They dont 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.

86

 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 chips 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.
87

 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.
Its 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 dont 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.

88

 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 yesterdays 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.
Dont like look of it or taste really.
Flavour a bit bland, not salty enough. Too thin.

89

 Flavour a bit bland needs a lot more salt and appearance is lacking again.
I couldnt 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.
Its a bit oily.
Its 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.
90

 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.

91

 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 dont 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.
92

 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,
its very sticky.
Appear too pale and uncooked pasty taste in mouth.
Appearance.
Brittleness as opposed to crunchiness. Didnt 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. Doesnt 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.

93

 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 dont 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.

94