Abstract:
This study was conducted to develop two new product which are timun betik hard jelly
and energy bar incorporation timun betik hard jelly and dried mango. This study also
aims to determine the sensory acceptance of timun betik hard jelly and energy bar and to
determine the physical analysis and proximate analysis of acceptable energy bar. The
timun betik hard jellies were prepared using four different formulations which differ in
term of fruitjuice and water contain. Both two variables were calculated as 100 % in this
preparation. The levels of fruit juice used were decreased for each formulation from 100
%, 85 %, 70 %, and 55 %. While in preparation of energy bar, there are five different
formulations which differ in percentage of hard jelly and dried mango used. Both variable
percentages were calculated for I 00%. Level of hard jelly used was increased for each
formulation from 20 %, 35%, 50%, 65%and 80 %. In contrast for dried mango decreased
for each formulation from 80%, 65%, 50%, 35% and 20 %. The sensory evaluation for
ti mun betik hard jelly was carried out first before do the sensory acceptance of energy bar
to choose the best formulation and used in preparation of energy bar. An affective test
using the 7-point hedonic scale was conducted for both sensory. Statistical Analysis
System (SAS) was used to determine the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's
Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at probability level of 5 %. The acceptable energy bar was
analyzed for proximate analysis and physical analysis. Results show that, for sensory
acceptance of timun betik hard jelly show that most of attributes there is no significant
different among formulation. Formulation A was used in preparation energy bar in term
of Formulation A had highest mean score for each attributes. Result for sensory
acceptance of energy bar show that the formulation A was accepted by consumer. The
result for color analysis indicates that the energy bar had brighter and more to yellowness
color. While the result for proximate analysis were 11.21 % of moisture content, 14.9 %
of ash content, 7 .1 % of protein content, 2.07 % of fat content, 2. 73% of fiber content and
61.99% of carbohydrate content. Result in this study indicate that the energy bar can
classified as energy bar high in carbohydrate because the carbohydrate content in this
energy bar was highest than protein and fat content.
