TARO (Colocasia esculenta) FLOUR AS ALTERNATIVE FOR PUTO

A Research Project

Presented to the

Faculty of

Naisud National High School

Naisud, Ibajay, Aklan

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for Practical Research II

By

Cristina Levantino

Charlyn Tesorero

Jonh Kenneth Antaran

John Lovel Reyes

Jigo Valentin
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Taro scientifically known as Colocasia esculenta, also called eddo or dasheen,

herbaceous plant of the family Araceae. Probably native to southeastern Asia, whence it spread

to Pacific islands, it became a staple crop, cultivated for its large, starchy, spherical underground

tubers, which are consumed as cooked vegetables, made into puddings and breads, and also

made into the Polynesian poi, a thin, pasty, highly digestible mass of fermented taro starch. The

large leaves of the taro are commonly stewed. Taro is cultivated in rich, well-drained soil. The

tubers are harvested seven months after planting. Taro leaves and tubers are poisonous if eaten

raw; the acrid calcium oxalate they contain must first be destroyed by heating.

(https://www.britannica.com/plant/taro-plant)

Flour, finely ground cereal grains or other starchy portions of plants, used in various food

products and as a basic ingredient of baked goods. Flour made from wheat grains is the most

satisfactory type for baked products that require spongy structure. In modern usage, the word

flour alone usually refers to wheat flour, the major type in Western countries. The wide variety

of wheat flours generally available includes whole wheat, or graham, flour, made from the entire

wheat kernel and often unbleached; gluten flour, a starch-free, high-protein, whole wheat flour;

all-purpose flour, refined (separated from bran and germ), bleached or unbleached, and suitable

for any recipe not requiring a special flour; cake flour, refined and bleached, with very fine

texture; self-rising flour, refined and bleached, with added leavening and salt; and enriched flour,

refined and bleached, with added nutrients. Flours are also made from other starchy plant
materials including barley, buckwheat, chickpeas, lima beans, oats, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans,

rice, and rye. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/flour)

Kakanin are native delicacies made of malagkit (glutinous rice), which comes in two

varieties: the first-lassariety that is sweet, rounded and white and the regular variety that is

longish and translucent. The word kakanin is derived from kanin, tagalog for rice. The here basic

ingredients are malagkit or glutinous rice, coconut milk or gata and sugar.

(https://www.google.com/amp/s)

This study aims to know the effectiveness of taro flour as puto products.
Statement of the Problem

The study entitled Taro (Colocasia esculenta) flour as alternative for flour was conducted in

order to determine whether taro flour is capable in making puto.

1. The effectiveness of Taro root as a substitute for flour in terms of:

a. Taste

b. Color

c. Texture

Hypothesis

1. There is no effectiveness of Taro flour in making puto in terms of taste, color and texture.

Significance of the Study

Consumer – This research study serves as an eye opener to consumers for them to use natural

products and to lessen their burden to towering prices of flours. Furthermore, this gives them the

chances to save money for future uses.

Educators – The study would be beneficial to educators with the proposed study, they may be

informed that taro flour can be made as puto. Through this study, they might help is spreading

information to student about a simple way to produce flour.

Entrepreneur – In this research, they will be informed of a new way to effectively lessen their

expenses especially if their business is related to cooking. Entrepreneur can form new ideas for a

better business enterprise.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study is delimited only to the use of taro flour as material for making puto product to

be conducted for school year 2019 – 2020. This study will be conducted at Naisud National High

School. The study will only focus on the acceptability status of taro flour as puto products.

Conceptual Framework

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

The effectiveness of taro

Taro (Colocasia esculenta)
flour as kakanin products
Flour as Alternative for
in terms of taste, color
Kakanin
and texture.

Figure 1. The paradigm shows the relationship between independent and dependent

variables.

The Independent Variables shows the “Taro (Colocasia esculenta) flour as alternative for

kakanin ” while the Dependent Variables shows the “The effectiveness of taro flour as puto

products in terms of taste, color and texture.

Definition of Terms

Taro – a large-leaved tropical Asian plant (Colocasia esculenta) of the arum family grown

throughout the tropics for its edible starchy corms and cornels and in temperate regions for

ornaments. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taro)

Flour – is a powder made of cereal grains, other seeds, or roots. It is the main ingredients of

bread, which is staple fod for many civilizations, making the availability of adequate supplies of

flour a major economic and political issue at various times throughout history.

(en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Flour)

Puto – it’s an umbrella term for sweets made of glutinous rice and coconut milk, two ingredient

are usually employed in that tropical countries like ours have in abundance.

(https://www.pepper.ph/the-history-behind-7-of-our-favorite-kakanin)

Grinding – this means to crush, pulverize, or reduce to powder by friction, especially by rubbing

two hard surfaces. It also means to reduce powder or small fragments by friction as in a mill or

with the teeth into small pieces. (www.thefreedictionary.com/grinding)

In this study, it refers to the process of grinding the taro roots into flour.

Steaming – is a moist-heat method of cooking that works by boiling which vaporizes into steam;

it is the steam that carries heat to the food, cooking eat.

(htpps://www.jessicagavin.com/steaming/)

Mixing – combine or put together to form one substance or mass.

(htpps://www.google.com/meaning+mixing)
Color – this means as the visual perceptual property corresponding in humas to the categories

called red, yellow, blue and others. Color derives from the spectrum of light distribution of light

energy versus wavelength interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light

receptors. (htpps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/color)

Taste – to try or test the flavor or quantity of (something) by taking some into the mouth.

(htpps://www.dictionary.com/taste)
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L) Schott) is widely distributed in tropical and sub-tropical

areas. However, its origin, diversification and dispersal remain unclear. While taro genetic

diversity has been documented at the country and regional levels in Asia and the Pacific, few

reports are available from Americas and Africa where it has been introduced through human

migrations. We used eleven microsatellite markers to investigate the diversity and diversification

of taro accessions from nineteen countries in Asia, the Pacific, Africa and America. The highest

genetic diversity and number of private alleles were observed in Asian accessions, mainly from

India. While taro has been diversified in Asia and the Pacific mostly via sexual reproduction,

clonal reproduction with mutation appeared predominant in African and American countries

investigated. Bayesian clustering revealed a first genetic group of diploids from the Asia-Pacific

region and to a second deploid-triploid group mainly in India. Admixed cultivars between the

two genetic pool were also found. In West Africa, most cultivars were found to have originated

from India. Only one multi-locus linrage was assigned to the Asian poll, while cultivars in

Madagascar originated from India and Indonesia. The South African cultivars shared lineages

with Japan. The Caribbean Islands Cultivars were found to have originated from the Pacific,

while in Costa Rica they were from India or admixed between Indian and Asian groups. Taro

dispersal in the different areas of Africa and America is thus discussed in the light of available

records of voyages and settlements.

(htpps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157712)
 The high viscosity of taro starches makes them very useful in food applications where

high thickening power is desired as well as the small particle size being useful for bread or

noodle production (Aprianita et al. 2009).High protein content in flour may cause the starch

granules to be embedded within a stiff protein matrix which subsequently limits the access of the

starch to water and restricts the swelling power (Aprianita et al. 2009).A retrogradation tendency

in taro flour has been reported earlier (Aprianita et al. 2009).Although starch is quantitatively

major component to control the pasting/thermal properties, temperature induced changes in non

starchy polysaccharides and proteins also contribute to the gelling, and pasting properties by way

of swelling, denaturation and unfolding (Kaur and Sandhu 2010).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550941/

The crop is largely produced in Africa even though the time of its spread to the region is

unknown and nowadays cultivated in Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana and Burkina Faso where it has

gained high importance (Chaïr, 2016). It has been suggested that the crop was cultivated to fill

seasonal food gaps with other crops still in the fields because of its potential in giving

reasonable yield under conditions where other crops may be unable to give produce by various

crop production constraint (Tewodros, 2013).Taro contains anti-nutrient factors such as: oxalate,

phytate and tannin. Taro deteriorates rapidly as a result of its high moisture and has been

estimated to have a shelf-life of up to one month if undamaged (Lebot, 2009) and stored in a

shady area. Taro foods are useful to persons allergic to cereals and can be consumed by

infants/children who are sensitive to milk. (C. esculenta L.) known as Taro belongs to the family

Araceae. Linnaeus originally described two species which are now known as C. esculenta and

Colocasia antiquorum of the cultivated plants. Taro is related to Xanthosoma and Caladium,

plants commonly grown as ornamentals, and like them it is sometimes loosely called elephant
ear. Taro is made up of at least 100 genera and more than 1500 species (Mandal, 2013). Taro is

naturally a perennial monocotyledonous herb ,but for practical purposes is harvested after 5 to 12

months of growth (Mwenye, 2009). It grows to a height of 1 to 2 m consisting of a central corm,

lying just below the soil surface, from which leaves grow upwards, roots grown downwards,

while cormels, daughter corms and runners grow laterally (Ubalua, 2016). It has heart-shaped

green or purple leaves together with long petioles, fibrous roots and cylindrical or often irregular

nutrient storage organ (corm) and the nature of flowering, fruiting and seed production by wild

or cultivated taros (Colocasia esculenta ) has not been fully understood (Matthews, 2012).Taro

chromosome number is 2n=14, 28, and 42 and 2n=36 and 48 in India; it is suggested that the

genetic instability might be due to cultivation for long period of time in the region of center of

diversity (Dastidar, 2009).Morphological taro characterization can be done based on its corm,

stolon, leaf, petiole and floral characters and other quantitative traits. According to Lebot (2010),

there was high morphological variability in taro accessions in Southeast Asia and Oceania. The

high level of carbohydrate content observed in raw taro, taro powder, noodles and cookies agrees

with the findings reported by FAO (1990) that the main nutrient supplied by taro, as with other

roots and tubers, is dietary energy provided by the carbohydrates (Ndabikunze,2011). Taro

contains fairly amount of ash from which it can be inferred it contains good mineral contents.

The ash contents of taro ranged from 3.54 to 7.78% (Maksimov,2011). It is also used for

anthocyanin study experiments especially with reference to abaxial and adaxial anthocyanic

concentration (Hughes,2014). (htpps://www.academiapublishing.org)

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, it includes the following topics such as materials used in the

experimentation, and the processed involved in making the puto product, methods of research,

collection of data used and statistical treatment.

Materials:

The materials used in the study are the following:

 Grinder

 Measuring Cups

 Steamer

 Mixing Bowl

 Peeler

The Raw Materials:

 Taro roots as flour

 Sugar

 Baking Powder

 Water

 Evaporated Milk

 Egg

 Unsalted butter

 Cheese
Procedures:

Preparation of materials

The materials needed in the study such as Taro flour as alternative for puto are taro roots

as flour, sugar, baking powder, evaporated milk, water, egg, unsalted butter, and cheese were

prepared for the experimentation.

Processing of Materials

The Taro roots were peeled and grind. Then 2 cups of water, 1 cup of evaporated milk, 1

medium egg and 1 ¼ cup of unsalted butter was put on the bowl to mix. Then 2 cups taro roots

flour, 1 ¼ tablespoon baking powder and 1 cup of sugar was sift together. Then make a well in

the center of the dry ingredients and pour in wet ingredients. Mix just until combined. Spoon

batter into 1 ounce molding cups until ¾ full. Steam for 10 minutes. Then place a piece of cubed

cheese onto the top of each puto and steam an additional 1 minute until the cheese is slightly

melted. Remove from steamer and cool.

Preparation of Samples

Sample A was prepared by mixing 2 cups of all-purpose flour in 1 tsp. baking powder, 1

cup of sugar, ¼ cup unsalted butter, 2 cups of water, 1 cup of evaporated milk, 1 medium egg.

Sample B was prepared by mixing 1 cup of all-purpose flour and 1 cup of taro roots flour in 1

tsp. baking powder, 1 cup of sugar, ¼ cup unsalted butter, 2 cups of water, 1 cup of evaporated

milk, 1 medium egg and 1 cube of cheese and 1 cube of cheese. Sample C was prepared by

mixing 2 cups of taro roots flour in flour in 1 tsp. baking powder, 1 cup of sugar, ¼ cup unsalted

butter, 2 cups of water, 1 cup of evaporated milk, 1 medium egg and 1 cube of cheese.
Table 1. Composition of Sample

Sample Taro Commercial Sugar Baking Water Evaporated Egg Unsalted Cheese
Roots Flour Powder Milk Butter
Flour
A 2 cups 1 cup 1 tsp. 2 cups 1 cup 1 pc. 1/4 cup 1 cube

B 1 cup 1 cup 1 cup 1 tsp. 2 cups 1 cup 1 pc. 1/4 cup 1 cube

C 2 cups 1 cup 1 tsp. 2 cups 1 cup 1 pc. 1/4 cup 1 cube

The Evaluation Instrument

A check list using the 5 point scale was used for evaluation. Each replication of the treatment

was evaluated with the rating scale as follows:

Scale Descriptive Rating Effectiveness Rating

4.21 – 5.00 Liked Very Much Highly Effective

3.41 – 4.20 Likely Moderately Moderately Effective

2.61 – 3.40 Neither Liked nor Disliked Neither nor Effective

1.81 – 2.60 Disliked Moderately Slightly Not Effective

1.00 – 1.80 Disliked Very Much Not Effective

Research Locale

This study was conducted in Naisud National High School at Naisud, Ibajay, Aklan.

Data Gathering Procedure

Check list sheets on the 5 point scale was used for data gathering. The check list was given to

274 respondents to obtain necessary data. The 274 respondents answered some question for the

researchers to gathered necessary data.

The Research Design

The research design used in this study was the Completely Randomized Design, which

the data will be gathered from Three (3) treatment having 1 replicates each and are compared if

there are any changes.

The Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was appropriate for this study because data

were gathered from three different samples during the experiment obtained data, which the

researcher based and evaluated in terms of the components of the taro roots and nutritional

benefits of its flour.

Statistical Treatment

In this study, ANOVA was used to test whether or not there was any significant

difference between the three samples. In order to determine the differences as tasle, color, and

texture of the three different samples, the mean of the gathered data were obtained and treated

statistically. The formula for (ANOVA) analysis of variance.

Data Gathering Flowchart

Preparation of Materials

Processing of Materials

Preparation of Samples

Application of Materials

Gathering of Data
 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the result and the interpretation of the data. This includes

taste, color and texture.

TASTE

Table 1

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample A in Terms of Taste

Taste
Respondents Description
A

274

Total 1,198.75

Mean 4.375 Liked Very Much

Table 1 shows the responses on the effectiveness of Sample A in terms of puto’s

taste. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.375 indicates that the puto is

“Liked Very Much by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is dependent

on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 2

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample B in Terms of Taste

Taste
Respondents Description
B

274

Total 1,280.95

Mean 4.675 Liked Very Much

Table 2 illustrates the responses on the effectiveness of Sample B in terms of

puto’s taste. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.675 indicates that the

puto is “Liked Very Much” by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 3

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample C in Terms of Taste

Taste
Respondents Description
C

274

Total 1,082.3

Mean 3.95 Liked Moderately

Table 3 shows the responses on the effectiveness of Sample C in terms of puto’s

taste. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 3.95 indicates that the puto is

“Liked Moderately” by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 4

Summary of Samples A, B, and C in Terms of Taste

Sample Total Mean

Respondents Description
A B C

274

1,082.
Total 1,198.75 1,280.95 3,562
3

Liked Very
Mean 4.375 4.675 3.95 13 4.33
Much

Table 4 shows the summary of responses of Sample A, B, and C with the

effectiveness in terms of taste of puto. Sample B has the highest mean of 4.675 while

Sample C got the lowest mean of 3.95. The three samples obtained the total mean of

4.33 which means “Liked Very Much”. This implies that the sample B obtained favorable

results compared to A and C. therefore, it was recommended for the production to

consumers.
COLOR

Table 5

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample A in Terms of Color

Taste
Respondents Description
A

274

Total 1,212.45

Mean 4.425 Liked Very Much

Table 5 shows the responses on the effectiveness of Sample A in terms of

puto’s color. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.425 indicates that the

puto is “Liked Very Much by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 6

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample B in Terms of Color

Taste
Respondents Description
B

274

Total 1,130.25

Mean 4.125 Liked Moderately

Table 6 illustrates the responses on the effectiveness of Sample B in terms of

puto’s taste. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.125 indicates that the

puto is “Liked Moderately” by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 7

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample C in Terms of Color

Taste
Respondents Description
C

247

Total 1,013.8

Mean 3.7 Neither Liked

Table 7 shows the responses on the effectiveness of Sample C in terms of puto’s

color. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 3.7 indicates that the puto is

“Neither Liked” by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is dependent on

the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 8

Summary of Samples A, B, and C in Terms of Color

Sample Total Mean

Respondents Description
A B C

247

1,013.
Total 1,212.45 1,130.25 3,325.5
8

Liked
Mean 4.425 4.125 3.7 8,553.7 4.08
Moderately

Table 8 shows the summary of responses of Sample A, B, and C with the

effectiveness in terms of color of puto. Sample A has the highest mean of 4.425 while

Sample C got the lowest mean of 3.7. The three samples obtained the total mean of

4.08 which means “Liked Moderately ”. This implies that the sample A obtained

favorable results compared to B and C. therefore, it was recommended for the

production to consumers.
TEXTURE

Table 9

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample A in Terms of Texture

Taste
Respondents Description
A

274

Total 1,171.35

Mean 4.275 Liked Very Much

Table 9 shows the responses on the effectiveness of Sample A in terms of puto’s

texture. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.275 indicates that the puto

is “Liked Very Much by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 10

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample B in Terms of Texture

Texture
Respondents Description
B

274

Total 1,116.55

Mean 4.075 Liked Moderately

Table 10 illustrates the responses on the effectiveness of Sample B in terms of

puto’s texture. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.075 indicates that

the puto is “Liked Moderately” by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents.

 Table 11

Responses on the Effectiveness of Sample C in Terms of Taste

Texture
Respondents Description
C

274

Total 1,253.55

Mean 4.575 Liked Very Much

Table 11 shows the responses on the effectiveness of Sample C in terms of puto’s

texture. As shown in the table, the total mean response of 4.575 indicates that the puto

is “Liked Very Much” by the respondents. This can be attributed that the puto is

dependent on the ingredients as perceived by the respondents

 Table 12

Summary of Samples A, B, and C in Terms of Texture

Sample Total Mean

Respondents Description
A B C

274

Total 1,171.35 1,116.55 1,253.55 3,541.45 4.31

Liked Very
Mean 4.275 4.075 4.575 12.925 4.31
Much

Table 12 shows the summary of responses of Sample A, B, and C with the

effectiveness in terms of texture of puto. Sample c has the highest mean of 4.575 while

Sample B got the lowest mean of 4.075. The three samples obtained the total mean of

4.33 which means “Liked Very Much”. This implies that the sample C obtained favorable

results compared to A and B. therefore, it was recommended for the production to

consumers.
 Scale Descriptive Rating Effectiveness Rating

4.21 – 5.00 Liked Very Much Highly Effective

3.41 – 4.20 Liked Moderately Moderately Effective

2.61 – 3.40 Neither Liked nor Disliked Neither nor Effective

1.81 – 2.60 Disliked Moderately Slightly Not Effective

1.00 – 1.80 Disliked Very Much Not effective

 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter views the summary, conclusions and recommendation from te

result of the study.

Summary

This study was conducted to determine the utilization of taro roots as

homemade flour and as a substitute to commercial flour in making kakanin (puto). The

study, made use of three variables amount of taro roots flour in proportion to a fixed

amount of wheat. Of the other ingredients in puto’s preparation were made constant

following a given recipe. The three samples were used 25% of taro root flour and 75%

of commercial flour, 50% of taro root flour and 50% of commercial flour and 75% of taro

root flour, and 25% of commercial flour.

The experimental research design was utilized in the study using questionnaire with 5

point scale for the interpretation of the result b the respondents.

An evaluation on the finished product was done by the respondents using the checklist.

The taste of the respondents compared the level of effectiveness among the three

different Samples of puto on the above mentioned indicators.

The puto made from this flour was evaluated as the taste, color, and texture. This study

was conducted in the cookery laboratory of Naisud National High School, Naisud,

Ibajay, Aklan from November to December.

Conclusion

The following statement were conclusions based from the findings of the study.

1. The puto made from the taro roots flour were highly effective in terms of taste,

color and texture.

2. The three samples obtained to have no significant differences.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the study, the following recommendation are hereby

stated:

1. Generally, among the three samples the researchers would like to recommend

sample B which had a liked moderately as suggested by the respondents.

2. Since all samples had obtained no significant differences result, the researchers

may recommend for the taro roots flour as main ingredients in making puto

because of its availability of the vegetable anywhere in the Philippines.

 3. Future researchers are hereby recommending to use the ingredients for

discovering another food product.

References

Chaïr H et al (2016). Genetic diversification and dispersal of Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.)

Schott). PLoS ONE. 11: 1-19.

Dastidar SG (2009). Colocasia esculenta: An account of its ethno botany and potentials. An

M.Sc. Нesis presented to Нe University of Texas, Austin. Del

Hughes NM (2014). Photosynthetic costs and benefits of abaxial versus adaxial anthocyanins in

Colocasia esculenta 'Mojito'". Planta. 240: 971– 981. doi:10.1007/s00425-014-2090-6.

Lebot V (2009). Tropical root and tuber crops: cassava, sweet potato, yams, aroids, CAB

International. pp. 279-360. Lebot V et al (2010). Characterizing taro using isozymes and

morphoagronomic descriptors. Нe global diversity of taro, Biodiversity International, Rome,

Italy. Pp. 39-55.

Macharia WM et al (2014). Genetic structure and diversity of East African Taro Colocasia

esculenta L. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 139: 2950-2955.

 Maksimov IV (2011). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as alternative to chemical crop

protectors from pathogens (Review). Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 47:333-345.

Mandal R et al (2013). Assessment of genetic diversity in Taro using morphometrics. Curr.

Agric. Res. J. 1: 79-85.

Manzano AR et al (2001). Morphological and isoenzyme variability of Taro (Colocasia

esculenta L. Schott) germplasm in Cuba. Нe global diversity of Taro, Biodiversity International,

Rome, Italy. Pp. 69-91.

Matthews PJ et al (2012). Ethnobotany and ecology of wild Taro (Colocasia esculenta) in the

Philippines: Implications for domestication and dispersal. Senri. Ethnol. Stud. 78: 307-340.

Miller CD (1971). Food values of poi, taro and limu. Bernice P. Kraus reprint, Hawaii.

Mwenye OJ (2009). Genetic diversity analysis and nutritional assessment of Cocoyam genotypes

in Malawi. An M.Sc. Thesis presented to University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Ndabikunze BK et al (2011). Proximate and mineral composition of cocoyam (Colocasia

esculenta L. and Xanthosoma sagittifolium L.) grown along the Lake Victoria Basin in Tanzania

and Uganda. African J. Food Sci. 5: 248-254.

Tewodros M (2013). Genetic diversity of Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) genotypes in

Ethiopia based on agronomic traits. Time J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 1: 23-30.

Ubalua AO et al (2016). Potentials and challenges of sustainable taro (Colocasia esculenta)

production in Nigeria. J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol. 4: 053-059.

 Slicing the taro roots Drying the taro roots

The mixed ingredients were put in the molding cup

Sample A Sample B Sample C

The taro roots had been

Preparing the ingredients
grinded and turned into flour

Then steamed for at least 15 minutes

Sample A Sample B Sample C

Sample A Sample B Sample C