Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Agriculture is the application of an interdisciplinary “science and technique”

known as post-harvest technology. Produce must be protected, preserved,

processed, packaged, distributed, marketed, and used after harvesting in order

to satisfy human demands for food and nutrition. To increase agricultural output,

avoid post-harvest losses, enhance nutrition, and add value to the goods, it must

evolve in accordance with the demands of each civilization. It must be able to

create jobs, stop job losses, and encourage the expansion of other linked

economic sectors during this process.

Candying is one of the oldest methods in preservation of foods. It is created

by slowly impregnating the fruit with syrup until the tissue’s sugar concentration is

high enough to prevent the growth of bacteria that cause deterioration. This

process is conducted by treating fruits with high concentrations of sugar to

prolong the life of fruits.

According to Koocheki et al., (2007) watermelon, (Citrullus lanatus) is a

tropical fruit which grows in almost all parts of Africa and South East Asia. The

skin is smooth, with dark green rind or sometimes pale green stripes that turn

yellowish green when ripe. It belongs to the family of cucumber (Cucurbitacea)

with large, oval, round or oblong shape. It can be categorized into three main

components i.e. the flesh, seed and rind.

1
 Watermelon rind has 95% of water content that making it susceptible to

deterioration. Thus, it is important to reduce the moisture content in order to

produce shelf stable products from watermelon rind. Air drying is a primeval

method used to preserve food in which the solid to be dried is exposed to a

continuously flowing hot air stream where moisture evaporates. (Athmaselvi et

al., 2011)

Recently, by-product utilization taken from the use of fruits and vegetable

waste had proven to reduce environmental pollution by maximizing its utilization

into a useful product. Thus, the researchers came up with this study to find out

the acceptability of a developed product using Watermelon rind.

2
Objectives of the Study

The study generally aims to develop a new product out of Watermelon

rind and determine its acceptability.

Specifically, the study aims to:

1. Determine the acceptability of Watermelon rind as candy in terms of:

a. Appearance

b. Texture

c. Taste

d. Aroma

e. General Acceptability

2. Determine if there is a significant difference among the treatment in

terms of appearance, texture, taste, aroma, and general acceptability

employed in the study.

3.Determine the cost and return analysis on the acceptability of

watermelon rind candy using different kinds of sugar.

Significance of the Study

The study utilizes efficiently watermelon rind as candy. The result of the

study will significant to the following:

3
To the Agriculture sector as the study may pave way in generating and

encouraging development or enhancement to agricultural products into

commercially accepted.

To the farmers as this study give them additional income through

watermelon rind as candy.

To the small business owners as the study give them a new idea to develop

new products from watermelon rind into candy.

To the researcher as the study help them to further develop their mind when it

comes to agricultural skills.

To the future researchers as this study can be helpful to sharpen their mind

when it comes to agriculture.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study was limited only on the acceptability of watermelon rind as

candy.

Time and Place of the Study

The study was conducted at Lambayong National High School, Barangay

Poblacion, Lambayong Sultan Kudarat from March to April 2023.

Hypothesis

There is no significance difference among the treatment means in terms of

(data gathered, i.e., appearance, taste, texture, aroma, and general

acceptability).

4
Operational Definition of Terms

The term below was defined to clearly clarify the manner they are referred to

and used as operational terms in this study.

Air Drying it is a process of using hot air stream to remove

moisture in a watermelon rind.

Appearance pertaining to the color of the finished product

Candying process to make a watermelon rind into candy

Moisture Content refers to the amount of water content in the watermelon

rind.

Sugar a sweet substance used in preservation

Post-harvest process done after harvesting to increase shelf life of

products

Matured Watermelon refer to the fruits that are sell in the market.

Student refers to the individual participated as board of taster.

Watermelon Rind it is substance use in research.

5
 Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter deals with related reading that supports the conceptualization

and interpretation of the study.

Description of Watermelon

Watermelon (Citrullus Lanatus var. lanatus, family Cucurbitaceae) is a

vine-like (scrambler and trailer) flowering plant originally from Southern Africa to

Bangladesh. Watermelon contains about 6% sugar and 91% water by weight. As

with many other fruits, it is a source of vitamin C. Watermelons contain a

significant amount of amino acid citrulline. The watermelon skin is smooth, dark

green rind or sometimes pale green stripes that turn yellowish green when ripe. It

is a very rich source of vitamins and also serve as a good source of

phytochemicals (Perkins Veazie and Collins,2004). Watermelon rinds are edible

and contain many hidden nutrients, but most people avoid eating them due to

their unappealing flavor. They are sometimes used as vegetable. In China, they

are stir-fried, stewed or more often pickled. Pickled watermelon rind is commonly

consumed in the Southern US (Rattray and Dianna, 2012). During the growing

season watermelon grows in plenty in Bangladesh. People eat watermelon pink

portion and throw away the rind to the dustbin. But the watermelon rind is

nutritive (Koocheki et al., 2007) watermelon biomass can be categorized as three

main components which are the flesh, seed, and rind. The flesh constitutes

6
approximately 68% of the total weight, the rind approximately 30%, and the

seeds approximately 2% (Kumar, 1985). It has protein, fat, carbohydrates, crude

fiber and ash contends decently (Koocheki et al., 2007). As watermelon rind

powder possess significant amount of moisture, ash, fat, protein and

carbohydrates 10.61%, 13.09%, 2.44%, 11.17% and 56.00% (Al-Sayed and

Ahmed, 2013) and rind contribute 30% of the total weight, it is essential to find

out the way of using watermelon rinds (so-called “wastes”) for the formulation of

different food products.

Obtained by Bakri et al., (2020), on their proximate analysis of pineapple

peels. The results for the moisture content of watermelon peels showed a lower

value than the (10.72%) reported by Iqbal (2015). The results obtained for the

low moisture content showed that when pineapple and watermelon peels are

stored after drying, they could serve a longer shelf life without microbial

deterioration or chemical changes.

According to Dhakal and Pradhan Ngan, (2017), carried out for the

utilization of watermelon rind in candy preparation preparation using different pre-

treatment and syrup. The fresh watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) rind brought from

Dharan market, washed, peeled, decored, and rind was cut into nearly size of

2x2x2x2 cm weighing about 4g. The samples were observed for blanching

adequacy which was found to be 20 mins. At 90 C. The samples were then pre –

7
treated differently, A (dipped in 0.3% dilute lime), B (dipped in0.5% KMS) and C

(dipped in 0.3 dilute lime& blanched). Candying was done by boiling pretreated

sample in 40Bx each day up to 75Bx with continuous boiling. Then candied

product were dried and subjected to sensory analysis. The data were statistically

analyzed using two-way ANOVA (no blocking) at 5% level of significance

difference (p<0.05) in the overall acceptability among samples. Among different

treatment sample, blanched and lime treated was found to be the best on

sensory analysis. The best pre-treatment was then used for candying by varying

the proportion of sugar i.e., S1 (sucrose syrup 100%) S2 (sucrose + honey ration

75:25) and S3 (sucrose+ honey ratio 50:50). Candying process was done

similarly. The sample coded S2 was best on sensory score. The work concluded

watermelon rind can also be used in the making of candy which is wasted.

Description of Sugar

According to Lajolo, F.M., et. al., (2021) Sugar is an ancient food and

currently one of the most used ingredients in human nutrition and in the food

industry. In tropical regions, sugar is produced mainly from sugarcane, while

temperate countries produce sugar preferably from sugar beets. Due to its

widespread use, the forthcoming adoption of genetically modified (GM)

sugarcane varieties may raise questions about the quality and classification of

the sugar produced. Here, we describe the several varieties of and their specific

uses and legal classification. Regardless of whether they are produced from beet

or from sugarcane and their final use, sugar consist of highly purified substances

8
composed almost entirely from a disaccharide (sucrose) whose consist of two

monosaccharide residues: glucose and fructose. The differences between

commercial sugar types are primarily in sucrose content (>99.00 to 99.80 Z),

moisture content, ICUMSA color, conductivity ashes and reducing sugar. Neither

DNA nor proteins can be detected at relevant levels in the different types of

sugar. Therefore, sugar from genetically modified sugarcane varieties is virtually

identical to sugar produced from conventional sugarcane, and the adoption of

GM sugarcane varieties should not cause any change to the current use of sugar

in human nutrition and in the food industry.

Related Study of Fruit Peel Candy

Kumar, Rakesh, et al., (2022), The Mandarin (Citrus reticulate L.) is one

important humid tropical and sub-tropical fruit plant. Orange peel candy was

subjected to chemical analysis and organoleptic evaluation at fourteen days

interval up to 90 days. As regards storage period concerned, increasing trend in

titrable acidity, reducing sugar while decreased trend in TSS, moisture, total

sugar and ascorbic acid content of orange peel candy from the time of

preparation up to 90 days of storage was noticed.

9
Conceptual Framework of the Study

Input Process Output

Watermelon Rind
Acceptable
turn into candy
Watermelon Rind Watermelon Rind
using different
Candy
types of sugar

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

The Conceptual model used in this study is the input-process-output

model wherein a series of boxes were connected. The first step shows the

problem that occurred in the industry, second how it was conducted to gather

data and then the last is the solution in the problem.

10
 Chapter III
METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the methods used in the study. It represents the

research material, experiment design and variation in product development

acceptability of watermelon rind candy.

Materials

The materials used in conducting this study was knife, peeler, cooking

pan, blender, measuring cups, molder and water cellophane.

Ingredients

The ingredients used in conducting this study was Watermelon rind,

condensed milk, food coloring and sugar (refined sugar, washed sugar, brown

sugar and muscovado sugar).

Methods

Experimental Design and Treatments

The study was laid out using Completely Randomized Design with four

treatments replicated 3 times.

Treatments of the study were be as follows;

T1- Refined Sugar (1/2 kilo of Watermelon Rind + ½ cups of refined

sugar + ½ cups of condensed milk + ½ teaspoon of food coloring)

11
 T2- Washed Sugar (1/2 kilo of Watermelon Rind + ½ cups of
washed sugar + ½ cups of condensed milk + ½ teaspoon of food coloring)

T3- Brown Sugar (1/2 kilo of Watermelon Rind + ½ cups of brown

sugar + ½ cups of condensed milk + ½ teaspoon of food coloring)

T4- Muscovado Sugar (1/2 kilo of Watermelon Rind + ½ cups of

muscovado sugar + ½ cups of condensed milk + ½ teaspoon of food
coloring)

Selection and Collection of Sample

The fresh and matured Watermelon Fruits was procured from the local

market of Barangay Poblacion, Lambayong Sultan Kudarat.

Processing of Watermelon Rind

The watermelon fruits were washed under running tap water and they

were wiped with a clean dry cloth. The watermelon fruits were cut using knife be

separate the pulp from the rind. After separating, the green part of the rind will be

discarded.

Preparation of Materials and Utensils

All the materials used in this study were washed thoroughly.

12
Procedure in making Watermelon Rind Candy

Cut the Watermelon rind into small pieces and put in the blender. Blend it until
the Watermelon rind is completely crushed.

Put the blended Watermelon puree in a pan and boil the under low heat.

Set aside cooked Watermelon rind puree. On a separate pan cook all other
ingredients.

Cook over slow fire, stirring constantly until mixture is thick enough to roll. Add
the cooked Watermelon puree. Then add the food coloring.

When cooked, remove pan from the fire. Transfer the mixture to a molder. Let it
cool and cut into serving sizes and cool.

Wrap individually in water cellophane and pack.

Respondents and Sampling

There were (20) respondents who will evaluate the sensory quality is of

watermelon rind candy based on appearance, texture, taste and general

acceptability. The 20 respondents of the study were randomly selected from the

students of Lambayong National High School. Utilizing the score sheet with the

criteria of evaluation.

Research Instruments

The study used the sensory evaluation sheet to assess the participant

perception of the different treatments of the study product development of

Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy. The hedonic rating scale was used in

13
evaluating the output in terms of appearance, texture, taste, aroma, and general

acceptability.

Since all these research instruments was adopted from the standard rating

instruments, these were no longer subjected anymore to dry run or tested for

reliability. (Lawless and Hermann, 2010)

These were submitted to the panelist for analysis/ scrutiny and approval.

Sensory Evaluation Criteria Parameters

To determine the sensory quality of the product, the following parameters

were used: (Sensory Evaluation Test Lawless and Hermann, 2010)

Table 1: Rating Scale used in the Conduct of the Sensory Evaluation for
Appearance (Lawless and Hermann, 2010).

RATING DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

7 Very much appealing Highly acceptable

6 Too appealing Moderate acceptable

5 Slightly appealing Slightly acceptable

4 Just about right Neither acceptable or unacceptable

3 Slightly not appealing Slightly unacceptable enough

2 Not appealing enough Moderately unacceptable

1 Very much not Highly unacceptable

appealing

14
Table 2: Rating Scale used in the Conduct of the Sensory Evaluation for Texture
(Lawless and Hermann, 2010).

RATING DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

7 Very much too fine Highly acceptable

6 Too fine Moderate acceptable

5 Slightly too fine Slightly acceptable

4 Just about right Neither acceptable or unacceptable

3 Slightly not fine Slightly unacceptable enough

2 Crumbly Moderately unacceptable

1 Very crumbly Highly unacceptable

Table 3: Rating Scale used in the Conduct of the Sensory Evaluation for Taste
(Lawless and Hermann, 2010).

RATING DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

7 Very much to delectable Highly acceptable

6 Too delectable Moderate acceptable

5 Slightly too delectable Slightly acceptable

4 Just about right Neither acceptable or unacceptable

3 Slightly not acceptable Slightly unacceptable enough

2 Not delectable enough Moderately unacceptable

1 Very much not delectable Highly unacceptable

Table 4: Rating Scale used in the Conduct of the Sensory Evaluation for Aroma

15
 (Lawless and Hermann, 2010).

RATING DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

7 Very much aromatic Highly acceptable

6 Too aromatic Moderate acceptable

5 Slightly aromatic Slightly acceptable

4 Just about right Neither acceptable or unacceptable

3 Slightly not aromatic Slightly unacceptable enough

2 Not aromatic enough Moderately unacceptable

1 Very much not aromatic Highly unacceptable

Table 5: Rating Scale used in the Conduct of the Sensory Evaluation for General
Acceptability (Lawless and Hermann, 2010).

RATING DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

7 Very much too Highly acceptable

likeable

6 Too likeable Moderate acceptable

5 Slightly too likeable Slightly acceptable

4 Just about right Neither acceptable or unacceptable

3 Slightly not likeable Slightly unacceptable enough

2 Not likeable enough Moderately unacceptable

1 Very much not Highly unacceptable

likeable

16
 T1 R2 T4 R1 T3 R3

T4 R3 T2 R1 T2 R3

T3 R1 T1 R1 T4 R2

T2R2 T3 R2 T1 R3

Figure 2. The Experimental lay-out of the study

Legend:
T1 - Refined Sugar; standard check
T2 - Washed Sugar
T3 - Brown Sugar
T4 - Muscovado Sugar

Data Gathering Procedure

17
 Before the conduct of the study, the researcher prepared the needed

communication letters from all concerned offices. A letter asking permission to

conduct the study were asked from the office of the Dean of College of

Agriculture through the recommendation of the research adviser. A letter asking

permission was also sent to the principal of the target locale of the study to allow

the researchers conduct the sensory evaluation with their students as board of

tasters.

Upon the approval of all the request, the researchers set the schedule

including the date, time and assigned area for the evaluation. During the

schedule, the researchers distributed the sensory evaluation sheet to the panel

of evaluators. The respondents were given instructions on how to answer the

evaluation sheet. Every after tasting each treatment, the respondents were asked

to drink water to wash out the taste of each treatment and to ensure that each

treatment had tasted and evaluated properly.

Cost and Return Analysis

The cost and return analysis were determined by subtracting the cost of

production from the sales of watermelon rind candy at the end of the study.

a. Net Profit (Sales – Cost Expenses)

b. Return of Investment

18
Statistical Analysis

The data gathered were analyzed and interpreted using the analysis of

variance for Completely Randomized Design (CRD) Test for significant difference

among treatment means were analyzed using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

(DMRT).

19
Table 6: Sample of sensory evaluation sheet used to measure the acceptability
of watermelon rind candy.

Sensory Evaluation Form

Recipe Name:

Directions: Check one rating for each of the following: appearance, texture,
taste,
aroma, and general acceptability.

RATING APPEARANCE TEXTURE TASTE AROMA GENERAL

SCALE ACCEPTABILITY

7. Highly
acceptable
6. Moderate
acceptable
5. Slightly
acceptable
4.Neither
acceptable
or
unacceptable
3.Slightly
unacceptable
2.Moderately
unacceptable
1.Highly
unacceptable

20
 Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy in terms of Appearance

Table 7 shows the Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy as Influenced

by Different Types of Sugar in terms of Appearance.

Result of the study shows that there was no significant difference among

treatments at 5% level. Numerically, the highest mean was observed in refined

sugar (T1) and brown sugar (T3) with a of mean of 5.07 and the lowest mean was

found in washed sugar (T2) with a mean of 4.7.

Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy in terms of Taste

Table 8 shows the Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy as

Influenced by Different Types of Sugar in terms of Taste.

Result of the study shows that there was no significant difference among

treatments at 5% level. Numerically, the highest mean was observed in brown

sugar (T3) with a of mean of 5.53 and the lowest mean was found in refined

sugar (T1) with a mean of 5.06.

Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy in terms of Texture

Table 9 shows the Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy as

Influenced by Different Types of Sugar in terms of Texture.

21
 Result of the study shows that there was no significant difference among

treatments at 5% level. Numerically, the highest mean was observed in washed

sugar (T2) with a of mean of 4.88 and the lowest mean was found in muscovado

sugar (T4) with a mean of 4.1.

Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy in terms of Aroma

Table 10 shows the Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy as

Influenced by Different Types of Sugar in terms of Aroma.

Result of the study shows that there was no significant difference among

treatments at 5% level. Numerically, the highest mean was observed in washed

sugar (T2) with a of mean of 4.7 and the lowest mean was found in refined sugar

(T1) with a mean of 4.25.

Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy in terms of General Acceptability

Table 11 shows the Acceptability of Watermelon Rind Candy as

Influenced by Different Types of Sugar in terms of General Acceptability.

Result of the study shows that there was no significant difference among

treatments at 5% level. Numerically, the highest mean was observed in washed

sugar (T2) with a of mean of 5.75 and the lowest mean was found in refined

sugar (T1) with a mean of 5.37.

22
Table 7. Acceptability of watermelon rind candy as influenced by different
types of sugar in terms of appearance. Sultan Kudarat State
University, College of Agriculture,2023.

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

I II III
Refine Sugar 4.95 5.2 5.05 15.2 5.07
Washed Sugar 5.1 4.75 4.25 14.1 4.7
Brown Sugar 5.1 4.95 4.15 15.2 5.07
Muscovado Sugar 5.05 4.8 4.6 14.45 4.82
TOTAL 58.95 4.915

ANOVA

Source df SS MS F-value F-Tab

Of 5% 1%
Variance

Treatment 3 0.307 0.102 1.569 4.07NS 7.59

Error 8 0.52 0.065

TOTAL 11 0.826

CV = 5.19 %
ns= not significant

23
Table 8. Acceptability of watermelon rind candy as influenced by different
types of sugar in terms of taste. Sultan Kudarat State University,
College of Agriculture,2023.

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

I II III
Refine Sugar 4.75 5.35 5.1 15.2 5.07
Washed Sugar 5.2 5.05 5.45 15.7 5.23
Brown Sugar 4.9 5.75 5.95 16.6 5.53
Muscovado Sugar 4.95 5.25 5.25 15.35 5.12
TOTAL 62.85 5.237

ANOVA

Source df SS MS F-value F-Tab

Of 5% 1%
Variance

Treatment 3 0.394 0.131 1.120 4.07NS 7.59

Error 8 0.932 0.117

TOTAL 11 1.326

CV= 6.53 %
ns= not significant

24
Table 9. Acceptability of watermelon rind as candy as influenced by
different types of sugar in terms of texture. Sultan Kudarat State
University, College of Agriculture, 2023.

TREAMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

I II III
Refine Sugar 4.5 4.6 4.8 13.9 4.63
Washed Sugar 4.85 4.95 4.85 14.65 4.88
Brown Sugar 4.9 4.3 4.4 13.6 4.53
Muscovado Sugar 4 3.45 4.85 12.3 4.1
TOTAL 54.45 4.535

ANOVA

Source df SS MS F-value F-Tab

Of 5% 1%
Variance

Treatment 3 0.962 0.321 0.045 4.07NS 7.59

Error 8 1.254 0.157

TOTAL 11 2.216

CV= 8.73 %
ns= not significant

25
Table 10. Acceptability of watermelon rind as candy as influenced by
different types of sugar in terms of aroma. Sultan Kudarat State
University, College of Agriculture,2023.

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

I II III
Refine Sugar 4.1 4.5 4.15 12.75 4.25
Washed Sugar 4.6 4.7 4.8 14.1 4.7
Brown Sugar 4.55 4 4.25 12.8 4.2
Muscovado Sugar 4.15 4.25 4.5 12.9 4.3
TOTAL 52.55 4.362

ANOVA

Source df SS MS F-value F-Tab

Of 5% 1%
Variance

Treatment 3 0.415 0.138 3.365 4.07NS 7.59

Error 8 0.332 0.041

TOTAL 11 0.747

CV= 4.62 %
ns= not significant

26
Table 11. Acceptability of watermelon rind candy as influenced by different
types of sugar in terms of general acceptability. Sultan Kudarat State
University, College of Agriculture,2023.

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

I II III
Refine Sugar 5.1 5.7 5.3 16.1 5.37
Washed Sugar 5.4 6.25 5.6 17.25 5.75
Brown Sugar 5.5 5.6 5.45 16.55 5.52
Muscovado Sugar 5.35 5.35 5.65 16.35 5.45
TOTAL 66.25 5.523

ANOVA

Source df SS MS F-value F-Tab

Of 5% 1%
Variance

Treatment 3 0.244 0.081 0.988 4.07NS 7.59

Error 8 0.654 0.082

TOTAL 11 0.898

CV= 1.49 %
ns= not significant

27
Financial Analysis

Table 12-15, shows the cost and return analysis on the acceptability of

Watermelon Rind Candy as Influenced by Different Types of Sugar.

The result of the study showed that Washed Sugar and Brown Sugar has

the highest ROI with 7.829%, followed by Muscovado Sugar having a 5.94%

ROI, and with the lowest ROI among the four treatments is the Refine Sugar

which only has 5.83% ROI.

In terms of the projected menu price for every pack with 10 pcs. All of the

four treatments had the same projected menu price of 30 pesos per pack. Each

pack has 10 pcs of Watermelon rind candy and they can also sell it 3 pesos

each. (Each of the treatments has a 10% Q-factor and a labor costing of 50

cents).

The high projected menu price of all treatments result of many factors

such as lack of supply and low production rate of sugar resulted to the high price

of

sugar in the local market.

28
Table 12. Cost and Return Analysis on the Acceptability of Watermelon
Rind
Candy as Influenced Types of Sugar for Refine Sugar. Sultan
Kudarat State University, College of Agriculture 2023.

Ingredients Portion Size Price Item Cost

Refine Sugar ½ cup 47.5 11.4

Watermelon ½ kilo of rind 25 per kl. 25
Condensed Milk ½ cup 45 (125ml) 14.4
Melon Extract ½ tsp. 54 (20ml) 6.25
Food Coloring 1/8 tsp 34 (20ml) 1.02
Water Cellophane ½ _ 7.5
Packaging 4pcs _ 2
Cellophane
Label _ _ 2
Gas (Butane gas) 1 small size _ 14
Labor (.50 cents per pcs) 20
Q Factor (10) 10.357

TOTAL 113.927

PROJECTED MENU PRICE PER PACK WITH 10PCS 30

NET PROFIT 6.643

29
 ROI 5.83%

Table 13. Cost and Return Analysis on the Acceptability of Watermelon

Rind
Candy as Influenced Types of Sugar for Washed Sugar. Sultan
Kudarat State University, College of Agriculture 2023.

Ingredients Portion Size Price Item Cost

Washed Sugar ½ cup 37.5 9

Watermelon ½ kilo of rind 25 per kl. 25
Condensed Milk ½ cup 45 (125ml) 14.4
Melon Extract ½ tsp. 54 (20ml) 6.25
Food Coloring 1/8 tsp 34 (20ml) 1.02
Water Cellophane ½ _ 7.5
Packaging 4pcs _ 2
Cellophane
Label _ _ 2
Gas (Butane gas) 1 small size _ 14
Labor (.50 cents per pcs) 20
Q Factor (10) 10.117

TOTAL 111.287

PROJECTED MENU PRICE PER PACK WITH 10PCS 30

NET PROFIT 8.713

30
 ROI 7.829%

Table 14. Cost and Return Analysis on the Acceptability of Watermelon

Rind
Candy as Influenced Types of Sugar for Brown Sugar. Sultan
Kudarat State University, College of Agriculture 2023.

Ingredients Portion Size Price Item Cost

Brown Sugar ½ cup 37.5 9

Watermelon ½ kilo of rind 25 per kl. 25
Condensed Milk ½ cup 45 (125ml) 14.4
Melon Extract ½ tsp. 54 (20ml) 6.25
Food Coloring 1/8 tsp 34 (20ml) 1.02
Water Cellophane ½ _ 7.5
Packaging 4pcs _ 2
Cellophane
Label _ _ 2
Gas (Butane gas) 1 small size _ 14
Labor (.50 cents per pcs) 20
Q Factor (10) 10.117

TOTAL 111.287

PROJECTED MENU PRICE PER PACK WITH 10PCS 30

31
 NET PROFIT 8.713

ROI 7.829%

Table 15. Cost and Return Analysis on the Acceptability of Watermelon

Rind
Candy as Influenced Types of Sugar for Muscovado Sugar. Sultan
Kudarat State University, College of Agriculture 2023.

Ingredients Portion Size Price Item Cost

Muscovado Sugar ½ cup 45 10.8

Watermelon ½ kilo of rind 25 per kl. 25
Condensed Milk ½ cup 45 (125ml) 14.4
Melon Extract ½ tsp. 54 (20ml) 6.25
Food Coloring 1/8 tsp 34 (20ml) 1.02
Water Cellophane ½ _ 7.5
Packaging 4pcs _ 2
Cellophane
Label _ _ 2
Gas (Butane gas) 1 small size _ 14
Labor (.50 cents per pcs) 20
Q Factor (10) 10.297

TOTAL 113.267

PROJECTED MENU PRICE PER PACK WITH 10PCS 30

32
 NET PROFIT 6.733

ROI 5.94%

Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The study was conducted to determine the Acceptability

Watermelon Rind as Candy as Influenced by Different Types of Sugar. The

study was analyzed using a Complete Randomized Design with four treatments

and replicated three times. With 20 respondents from the Senior High School

Home Economic track of Lambayong, National High School, Poblacion

Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat.

The result of the study revealed that Washed Sugar and Brown Sugar has

the highest ROI with 7.829%, followed by Muscovado Sugar having a 5.94%

ROI, and with the lowest ROI among the four treatments is the Refine Sugar

which only has 5.83% ROI.

In terms of the projected menu price for every pack with 10 pcs. All of the

four treatments had the same projected menu price of 30 pesos per pack. Each

pack has 10 pcs of Watermelon rind candy and they can also sell it 3 pesos

each. (Each of the treatments has a 10% Q-factor and a labor costing of 50

cents).

33
 Based on the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the sensory evaluation

criteria for appearance, texture, taste, aroma and general acceptability shows

that there was no significant difference among the treatment used in this study.

Which is the hypothesis was adopted.

Conclusion
Based on the result of the study, it is concluded that Washed Sugar and

Brown Sugar has the highest ROI with 7.829%, followed by Muscovado Sugar

having a 5.94% ROI, and the lowest ROI among the four treatments is the Refine

Sugar which only has 5.83% ROI.

In terms of the projected menu price for every pack with 10 pcs. All of the

four treatments had the same projected menu price of 30 pesos per pack. Each

pack has 10 pcs of Watermelon rind candy and it can sell 3 pesos each.

Therefore, the researcher concluded that Washed Sugar and Brown

Sugar is more likely accepted in our market, based on its ROI and cheap price.

Recommendation

Given the above findings, the researchers recommend to produce

Watermelon Rind Candy using washed sugar and brown sugar. Which have a

high ROI and low price. They are a great source of income since washed sugar

and brown sugar was readily available in the local market.

Furthermore, it is also recommended to use coconut sugar especially to

those people whose health conscious.

34
DOCUMENTATION

35
36
37
38
 LITERATURE CITED

Al-Sayed, H., et al., (2013). Utilization of Watermelon Rinds and Sharlyn Melon
Peels as a Natural Source of Dietary Fiber and Antioxidants in Cake.
Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 58, 83-95.
Dhakal, D., et al., (2017). Utilization of watermelon rind (byproduct) in
preparation of candy and its quality evaluation. Int Multidiscipline Res J,
2(1), 1-6.
Kumar, R., et al., (2022). Preparation and quality assessment of orange (Citrus
reticulata L.) peel candy.
Lajolo, FM., et al., (2021). Sugar derived from genetically modified sugarcane.
Food Science and Technology (Campinas), 41 (1), 1-7.
Perkins-Veazie, P. and Collins, J.K. (2004). Flesh Quality and Lycopene
Stability of Fresh-Cut Watermelon. Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 31, 159-166.
Rattray and Diana (2012). Southern U.S. Cuisine: Judy’s Pickled Watermelon
Rind. Southernfood.about.com.
Salami, A. O., et al., (2022). Proximate Analyses of Watermelon and Pineapple
Wastes as Substrates for Single-Cell Protein Production. In Bioenergy
and Biochemical Processing Technologies: Recent Advances and
Future Demands (pp. 243-251). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.

39