Food Development ProjectBreakfast Granola Bar

By Abigail Page, Amanda Guenther, Madeleine LeBourveau, and Timothy Tran

Abigail PageAmanda Guenther

Madeleine LeBourveauTimothy TranNFSC 320Final Paper12/14/2012

Abstract:For our food product project, we chose a granola bar to serve as a convenience breakfast item.

Our goal was to create a nutrient dense product that could be enjoyed anywhere while incorporatingnutritious ingredients to correlate with current food trends. Our bar has a high source of dietary fiber, italso provides the consumer with eight grams of protein and is low in fat. It contains a rich source ofomega 3’s, which is a current consumer food trend. Over the course of several weeks in the food lab,we made several changes to our granola bar in order to improve the texture, moistness, and overallflavor of our product. Some of these changes included altering or adding ingredients, using differentequipment, and adjusting the method for cooling our product. In the end of the product developmentprocess, our granola bar was compared to a common chewy bar. After analyzing our results, we foundthat the store bought granola bar was slightly preferred to our prototype granola bar.

Introduction:Introducing a product into the competitive food market is an intricate process that requires a

great deal of knowledge and awareness. In order to launch a product that will survive in the market, themanufacturer must take into consideration every other similar product on the market and how it mightaffect the introduction of the new food product being introduced. In any introduction of a food product,each aspect relating to the product must be determined in great detail. These aspects include the type ofpacking that will be used, the target market of the product, the nutrient claim for the product, what theultimate goal of the item, along with various other considerations. In the introduction of our granola bar,we had to determine why we were producing the product and what would make our granola bar standapart from every other granola bar on the market. The nutrition claim we decided would be suit ourproduct is, “A high protein, high fiber, and whole grain granola bar.” This nutrient claim immediatelyseparated our product from the assortment of other granola bars that do not supply any omega 3’s,grains, or other essential nutrients. Directing our product towards active or busy people searching for an

easy on­the­go, nutrient packed breakfast set the standard for our intended target market. Not only didthis project provide us with the extensive knowledge regarding the importance of food productdevelopment, but also the significance of properly introducing the product.

The steps in food product development may differ in minute ways; however, most processessupport the same, or very similar, rational. These steps include: idea generation and screening, marketresearch, product specifications, feasibility study, development of a production process, development ofa prototype and testing the prototype (Biki, web). These are the same steps that many food productdevelopers undergo in order to produce a successful product. Once consumer trends weresystematically understood, an efficient, and universal, food product development process was expandedand utilized.

“The development and commerce of these products is rather complex, expensiveand risky, as special requirements should be answered. Besides potential technologicalobstacles, legislative aspects, as well as consumer demands need to be taken intoconsideration when developing functional food. In particular, consumer acceptance hasbeen recognized as a key factor to successfully negotiate market opportunities.” (Siro,Istvan, ed)

Throughout the development of our product, similarly to other products that are introduced intothe market, we needed to have an in­depth knowledge of food, a passion for food, a desire toresearch new trends, an understanding of the science of food and the ability to generate new ideasthat work (Foor Forum, web). Beginning with a solid concept helped our team to effectivelyproduce a granola bar we were proud of. “A nutritious granola bar that is packed with protein,fiber, and omega 3’s. It contains delicious dried fruit, chia seeds, and several different nuts. Thisbar is for those who are on­the go and want to have something healthy that will leave themsatisfied. It can also serve as an easy snack, any time of the day.” This fully developed conceptassisted our team throughout the entire development process and provided us with a basis that wecould refer to, strive to improve from and remain loyal to. The possibilities are endless in foodproduct development; it is the dedication and attention to detail that determine the successful orfailure of a product on the market. Successfully introducing our granola bar to the market ofconvenience breakfast items required many weeks of prototype development, excitement for theproduct and a solid foundation of pure, nutritious ingredients.

Materials and Methods:Each week we changed our independent variable to alter our product. For example, we altered

our recipe week by week in order to produce a more favorable product. Our ultimate goal was toproduce a granola bar that everyone could enjoy without straying away from our concept.

In round 1 of prototype development, we went with our original recipe which was taken fromthe Food Network website. This week's recipe yielded a product that did not resemble a granola bar.The product did not hold its shape and easily fell apart. We believe that this may have occurred becausewe did not allow enough time for our product to cool. The Pyrex baking dish that was used held too

much heat and our product could not cool within the given amount of time.In round 2, we altered our recipe by adding Chia Seeds. We added this ingredient because it

contributed to the fiber and Omega 3 content, it also made our product more "trendy" and appealing tothe average consumer. This week we also put our finished product into the refrigerator hoping that itwould help reduce cooling time. This ended up being unsuccessful, our product was still warm whenserved. We suffered from the same problems in round 1, our bars would not hold form and fell aparteasily. In round 3, we decided that we needed to alter the recipe so that our granola bar actuallyresembled a granola bar. We attempted to do this by adding whole wheat flour to the recipe. We hopedthat the whole wheat flour would promote gluten formation and gelatinization of the starches in the bar.We also decided to switch from using a Pyrex baking dish to a metal sheet pan. This proved to beeffective in reducing cooling time because the metal sheet pan had a higher thermal activity whichconducted heat away from our product better than the Pyrex baking dish. Round 3 of prototypedevelopment was a great success because all our changes positively affected our product . For the firsttime during the development process we formed a granola bar that held its form and did not crumble .Most consumers liked this product, but we had complaints about it having a dry flavor and texture. So in round 4, since cooling and form was no longer an issue, we focused on flavor and texture.This week we added almond butter in attempt to combat the dry texture and flavor of the previousproduct. The almond butter also added to the protein content of the product. This prototype was muchpreferred to the last prototype. Many preferred the flavor and we did not get any comments about theproduct being dry. In round 5, we wanted to experiment with flavor and texture. We decided to replace thealmond butter with peanut butter. The product was similar to the previous prototype, except manycommented on the flavor being generic, however, they also noted that they liked the crisp texturecompared to the previous prototype. In round 6, the final round of prototype development, we wanted to capture the texture of thepeanut butter bar and the flavor of the almond butter. We attempted this by using half almond butter andhalf peanut butter in the recipe. This prototype did not turn out as expected and the previously preferredprototype was still favored.

For consumer testing, we went with the recipe that was most favored by others. This turned outto be the recipe from round 4, which included the original recipe along with Chia seeds, whole wheatflour, and almond butter. Most of the prototype consumers commented on appearance, aroma, andflavor so we used this as a basis for our score sheets. We would have liked to used our lexicon fortesting, however, we were worried that this would affect our results. The inexperienced consumer testerwould not be able effectively analyze our product for specific attributes. This is why we decided to usemore basic categories for our testing score sheet. After collecting all the data from our consumer testingwe compiled all the information and averaged out all the figures.

Round of PrototypeDevelopment:

What we changed: Comments on thePrototype:

Round 1 Original recipe Did not resemble atraditional granola bar

Round 2 Addition of Chia seeds Did not resemble atraditional granola bar

Round 3 Addition of whole wheatflour

Resembled a granola barwith an exceptionally drytexture and mouth­feel

Round 4 Addition of almond butter Significantly preferredover the previous

prototypes, smoothertexture

Round 5 Replace almond butterwith peanut butter

Generic flavor with acrisp texture

Round 6 Half almond butter andhalf peanut butter

Not preferred byconsumers

Round 7 Final product with themodification and

incorporation of eachaccepted prototypethroughout the

developmental process

Perfect!

Results:

Average Results for Sample 346 (Chewy Bar)

Appearance Aroma Texture Overall Liking

5.65 7.00 6.23 6.83

Average Results for Sample 917 (Prototype)

Appearance Aroma Texture Overall Liking

5.50 5.90 6.35 6.45

Difference In Perspective of our Prototype

Appearance Aroma Texture Overall Liking

­0.15 ­1.10 0.12 ­0.38

For our food product sample testing we offered our final prototype alongside an oatmeal raisinQuaker Oats Chewy brand granola bar. Our scoring sheet asked subjects to score each bar based onappearance, aroma, texture and overall liking. We also allowed space for handwritten comments onwhat was favorable about the sample and what could be altered in each sample. The chewy bar waspreferred by marginal amounts in every category except for texture. There were many commentspreferring the texture of our prototype to the chewiness of the chewy bar. There was a fairly equalamount of positive comments regarding flavor for each sample. Some recurring comments that stoodout were in support of the visible fruits and nuts and “healthy” look to our prototype, and others thatmentioned the chewy bar needed more contents.

Discussion:

It was our anticipation that our own bar would score higher than the traditional chewy bar.Regarding the categories, appearance was very closely scored. One way we can improve ourappearance and overall satisfaction would be reducing the amount of chia seeds we used. Severalcomments suggested they were not the most appealing and others commented on how they can getstuck in your teeth. Aroma had the most significant difference, which may be attributed to the strongcinnamon presence in the Chewy granola bar. The texture of our prototype was preferred to chewybar. This may be influenced by the fact that our samples were cut into smaller pieces which causedsome crumbling of both of the bars. Testing full samples of the packaged bars may yield differentresults. Although we received a lot of positive feedback there were several comments expressing adesire for a more prevalent crunch in our prototype. Compared to some traditional favorites, such asQuaker Oats Chewy bars and Nature Valley granola bars, our product lies somewhere in betweenthose two textures. Personal preference of familiar products may affect the opinions and comments ofconsumers that are expecting our product to be like one or the other. Increasing our crunch factor andthen comparing it to a Nature Valley granola bar is an opportunity for further research. Our productwas slightly un­favored compared to the store bought granola bar. If the nutrition facts and healthclaims of both products were given it may be more likely that consumers would purchase our product ifthey are shopping for a more nutrient dense product for a filling breakfast or snack instead of the lowercalorie, lower nutrient dense and high sugar qualities of a chewy bar.

There are quite a few errors that may have occurred to impact the results of our study. A fewof the survey sheets had small indications that the samples had been mixed up. Data was still recordedas the tester had written it down. In addition to common errors that may have occurred, there was alsothe possibility of bias occurring from the testers. There may have been favorable or unfavorable reviewsgiven intentionally by people who knew members of our group. Other class members may have beensomewhat biased because they knew that our granola bar was healthier and they have had previousexperience with our prototype. Consistency was also an issue. Based on the amount of chewy bars wehad to work with and the amount of granola bars we made, there was a difference in size for each of thesamples. That may have had an effect on preference and capability to fully taste and evaluate eachproduct. Chewy bars are a commercialized product so the samples were consistent. The sheet pans weused caused the bars to turn out more crispy on the ends and chewier towards the middle. The productproduced was not fully uniform. Most the samples used pieces from the middle of the pan, but not all ofthe pieces were the same. This may have also caused some error in the consumer testing results.Further experimentation on maintaining a specific texture for our granola bars is needed.

There were some study limitations that impeded our research. The consumer pool is an obviousfactor. We can assume that all or most of the testers were college students. Our target market is morefocused on those that have a busy lifestyle, as well as a desire to eat healthy. This ideal target marketreaches to more than just college students, so a diverse study group may give us more accurateinformation on how to improve our product and how to market it. Limited materials was also a factor.

Only certain ingredients were available to due to the financial situation. Also, we only had oneopportunity to do a large consumer test. Additional testing of more subjects would give us a higherquality of research and more detailed results. We could also focus our testing more on the masspopulation rather than just college students. This would diversify our results and we could later alter ourproduct to the specific needs of the population.

Along with our nutrition facts panel, the label of our product can advertise that it is high in fiber,high in protein, high in omega 3 fatty acids and made from whole grains. The packaging we would liketo put in effect would consist of a foil and plastic wrapping around serving sizes of the granola bars asthe primary packaging, and a recycled cardboard box for the secondary packaging. Our productwould do best at grocery stores that have a healthy food options, such as Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods,local markets or even Raley’s. If the product does well enough it would be nice to also sell the granolabars individually, such as how they sell other granola bars at different locations here on campus. It’s agreat breakfast alternative to a muffin, bag of chex mix or other brand of granola or candy bar orwhatever other few items are offered.

Conclusions and Recommendations:Our granola bar was intended to be a delicious and nutritious choice for anyone with a busy

schedule who does not have the time to eat breakfast at home. Overall, the chewy bar was preferredover our prototype, but only by a small margin. Had we presented the bar to a different group oftesters, we may have found that the prototype was preferred over the chewy bar. We concluded thatthe chewy bar may have been preferred because it is a familiar taste to college students who are moreused to a diet that includes higher sugar, processed and packaged foods. There also may have beenother factors that gave us these results besides the age group that tested our product, including: thestudents could’ve mixed the products up, given us a biased opinion because they knew people in theclass, or simply because we did not have time to perfect our product and make it more appealing to themasses.

This granola bar could easily fit on the shelves of most grocery stores, however, due to thehigher cost of some of the ingredients, it may sell better in health food stores with similar products incost. Our nutritious, natural and preservative free approach could also land our product in stores likeTrader Joe’s and Whole Foods. If it is marketed correctly with the right packaging, our granola bar hasthe potential to be appealing to a large audience and compete with the average chewy bar on themarket.

Any further research that could be done on our breakfast bar could take us severalsemesters/years. Food trends are always changing, and new foods are constantly being discovered,such as the acai berry and the chia seeds that we chose. We also found that the choices for alternativeingredients are endless. The bar can be changed to a vegan, organic or even a gluten free product

simply by omitting a few ingredients and/or replacing them with others. The entire taste of the bar canalso be changed by switching out a few ingredients. Overall, the options are as vast as the choices ofdried fruits, nuts and grains that are available on this planet. Therefore, if we were to repeat this project,not only would we take food trends into consideration, but also the variety of people’s individual tastes.Creating a bar with dried apples, cinnamon and walnuts could reflect an apple pie flavor, while addingcoconut or chocolate could give someone a completely different flavor experience.

Overall, we were extremely pleased with the final product of our granola bar. The bar that wefirst introduced to the class developed into a bar that we were proud to promote and share with ourfriends. A commercial granola bar cannot compete with the whole grains and nutrients we packed intoour project. Throughout the entire process, with each prototype, we grew more inclined to research andunderstand the science of food and the potential to generate new ideas. We remained loyal to our ouroriginal basis of the project and incorporated our passion and knowledge into producing our finalprototype.

References

Biki. Bored of Studies. Biki Crumbs: Food Product Development. Web. Dec. 5. 2012.http://www.boredofstudies.org/wiki/Food_Product_Development.

Food Forum. Being a Food Product Developer. Web. Dec. 5. 2012.http://www.foodforum.org.uk/ffiles/New_Product_Development_1­Inn+Pro+Man+Con­KS4+P

ost.shtml.

Siro, Istvan, ed. Functional Food, Product Development, Marketing and ConsumerAcceptence­ A review. Appetite. Web. Dec. 5. 2012.

http://www.boredofstudies.org/wiki/Food_Product_Development.