Sensory Quality Assessment of Sago Based Sweetened Carrot Yoghurt
Prabhat Ranjan Patel
One of the exotic fermented milk products, yoghurt is gaining more popularity in India. Yoghurt has therapeutic properties and high nutritive value. It is good for the patient facing bone problem and proper way of the digestion in all human being. Keeping in view, the present study was under taken to investigate the sensory quality of yoghurt prepared from cow milk blended with carrot and sago powder. Carrot yoghurt were prepared with milk standardized for 4% fat and 14% SNF using cream and SMP (M1) and (M2) where SMP is replaced with SMP and sago powder in the ratio of 3:1 to maintain 14% SNF in milk. The carrot yoghurt from M1 and M2 milks with the addition of 0% (C0), 2% (C1) and 5% (C2) carrot juice and two levels of sugar-4% (S1) and 6% (S2). The starter culture Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus were mixed in the ratio of 3:1 (v/v) and incubated at 41±0.5°C using 1% mixed culture (v/v) for 8 h. The body and texture and acidity score decreased significantly (p<0.01) in the yoghurt samples while the carrot juice was increased levels of 0, 2 and 5% in all yoghurt samples. The highest score of flavour, colour, appearance and overall acceptability were found for sago based yoghurt with 2% carrot juice.
Received: August 06, 2011;
Accepted: November 14, 2011;
Published: December 21, 2011
Amongst the popular exotic fermented milk products, yoghurt is gaining more
popularity in the country. In the country it is mostly prepared from buffalo
and cow milk and with their combination. The fermented products have therapeutic
properties and high nutritive value (Karagul-Yuceer et
al., 2001). It reduces cholesterol in the body and helps to assimilate
nutrients in the body (Schieber et al., 2002;
Marona and Pedrigon, 2004; Patel
et al., 2009). Yoghurt provide resistant, anti-oxidants, anti-scorbatic,
anti-cancer and digestion problem. It is good for the patient facing bone problem
and proper way of the digestion in all human being (Beom
et al., 1998; Sun et al., 2001; Seo
and Yu, 2003). Keeping in view, the present study was under taken to investigate
the quality of yoghurt prepared from cow milk blended with carrot and sago powder.
Carrot (Dascus carota L.) is good source of carbohydrate, calcium, phosphorus,
iron, potassium, magnesium, copper, manganese and sulphur, it is an excellent
source of vitamins A, B1, B2, C, E, thiamin, folic acid and riboflavin but deficient
in iron and some of the vitamins (folic acid, riboflavin and vitamin C). Blending
of yoghurt with carrot juice would produce a nutritionally rich food (Ikken
et al., 1998; Raum, 2003).
Sago (Sabudana) is produce in a sago palm (Mutroxylon sagu) stem in
Indian sago. It is a cheaper source of starch and easily dissolved in hot water
and milk. It does not prove any colour, flavour and taste but it is a good source
of energy. One hundred grams of dry sago provide an average of 94 g carbohydrate,
0.2 mg protein, 0.5 dietary fiber, 10 mg calcium, 1.2 mg iron and negligible
amount of fat, thiamine and ascorbic acid (Hong, 1980).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Cross bred cow milk samples were procured form Banaras Hindu University Dairy farm, Varanasi and the freeze dried pure culture of Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbruechii subsp. bulgaricus were procured from the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana (India). The S. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus were mixed in the ratio of 3:1 (volume basis) in the culture.
The fresh cow milk was standardized for 4% fat and 14% SNF (Solid- not fat)
using fresh cow cream and skim milk powder (M1) and fresh cow cream
along with admixture of skim milk powder (SMP) and sago powder in the ratio
of 75:25 (M2). Two levels of sugar 4% (S1) and 6% (S2)
and three levels of carrot juice 0% (C0), 2% (C1) and
5% (C2) were added in milk samples M1 and M2.
The yoghurt prepared with all the levels of sugar and carrot juice from milk
M1 was designated as group-I and from milk M2 as group-II.
All the samples were heated at 90°C for 10 min and cooled at inoculation
temperature (41±0.5°C). The samples were inoculated at 41±0.5°C
using 1% mixed starter culture for 8 h. Evaluate the physical attributes of
the product, score card for fermented milk product as suggested by Nelson
and Trout (1981) was followed. Each sample was judged by a panel of five
experienced judges and scored for different qualitative parameters (flavour,
body and texture, colour and appearance, acidity) of the product.
Statistical analysis: The experiment was laid out in factorial randomised
block design. The experiment data was analysed using the methods of Snedecor
and Cochran (1994).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The yoghurt samples prepared under various treatments were analysed for important and major physical attributes as fallow:
Flavour: The highest flavour score (33.94) was found in the yoghurt sample M1S2 while the samples prepared M2S1 scored lowest value (32.17). The difference in the interaction effect between milk and sugar groups of flavour score (Table 1) was not significant. The highest flavour score (34.75) was recorded in the sample M1C1 whereas, the lowest flavour score was recorded in the yoghurt samples S2C0. The flavour score of yoghurt samples increased (p<0.01) with the addition of 6% sugar and 2% carrot juice (34.50), over samples prepare by 4% sugar without carrot juice (31.58).
The maximum flavour score (35.00) in yoghurt was recorded in the sample M1S2C1.
The value was comparatively lower when the yoghurt samples M2S1C0
(Table 2). The highest flavour score was found in the
samples prepared from 2% carrot juice with 4% and 6% sugar in both the levels
(0, 5%) of carrot juice. The best flavor score have also been reported by Aly
et al. (2004) when yoghurt was prepared with 5% carrot juice as compared
to the yoghurt prepared with 0, 10, 15 and 20% levels of carrot juice. Patil
et al. (2009) reported maximum flavour score at 5% guava pulp and
9% sugar, over the yoghurt the prepared with 15% guava pulp and 6% sugar. They
have also noted that as the levels of guava increased (from 5%) in the samples
and sugar decreased (from 9%) the flavor score of yoghurt decreased (p>0.05).
||Physical attributes of carrot yoghurt and their interactions
between milk with sugar, milk with carrot juice and sugar with carrot juice
|| Physical attributes of carrot yoghurt and their interaction
with milk, sugar and carrot juice
Body and texture: The difference in the interaction effect between milk and sugar on the body and texture score of yoghurt was significant (p<0.05). The higher body and texture score (23.17) was found in the yoghurt sample M1S2 while the sample M2S1 scored lowest value (21.28). The highest body and texture (24.50) score was recorded in the samples M1C1 whereas, the lowest score was recorded in the samples M2C2 (Table 1). The body and texture score (23.58) of yoghurt samples increased (p<0.01) with the S2C0. The lower body and texture score was recorded in the samples S1C2.
The highest body and texture scores (24.67) was recorded when samples M1S2C1
comparatively lower (19.50) values were recorded in the samples M2S1C2.
Prior research had observed that panel prefer yoghurt samples were lowered body
and texture (Aly et al., 2004; Kale
et al., 2007; Ghadge et al., 2008)
due to increased level of carrot juice, pomegranate, honey and apple. Vahedi
et al. (2008) and Walkunde et al. (2009)
had also contrary findings when used milk and sugar decreased body and texture
score in the yoghurt samples.
Colour and appearance: Colour and appearance score (11.22) was the highest
in M1S2 whereas, the yoghurt prepared from SMP+sago powder
based milk mixed with 4% sugar (M2S1) scored lowest value
(10.06). The interaction effect between milk and sugar scores in the samples
(Table 1) was found to be very high (p<0.01). Among the
interaction effect between milk and carrot juice, the yoghurt samples M1C1
showed highest value (12.17) whereas, the samples M2C0
showed lowest score (9.17). The interaction effect in the values obtained between
sugar and carrot juice was found to be very high (p<0.01). The highest colour
and appearance score was in the sample S1C1 (12.08) while
the score was very low in the sample S2C0 (9.00).
The score (12.67) was significantly very high (p<0.01) in the samples prepare
from SMP based milk blended with 6% sugar containing 2% carrot juice (M1S2C1).
These results were in close agreement by the observation of Guven
and Karaca (2002), Aly et al. (2004), Lovely
and Meullenet (2009), Patel et al. (2009)
and Walkunde et al. (2009).
Acidity score: A critical observation of the data presented in Table 1 indicates clearly that the interaction effect between milk and sugar had no significant impact on acidity score of yoghurt. The highest acidity score (6.30) was found in the yoghurt samples M2C0 while the yoghurt sample M2C2 scored lowest acidity score (4.90). The interaction effect between sugar and carrot juice was significantly (p<0.01) higher in yoghurt prepared from 6% sugar along without carrot juice (S2C0) than the lowest acidity score recorded in group S2C2 (5.07).
The increased (p<0.01) acidity score due to with the interaction between
milk, sugar and carrot juice (Table 2). The interaction effect
values between SMP based milk, 6% sugar and without carrot juice (M1S2C0)
was the highest (6.60). The lowest acidity score (4.83) was found in the sample
M2S1C2. The interaction of SMP, sago powder,
sugar and carrot juice these ingredients increased in the samples. Therefore,
acidity score was decrease. The present findings are at par with the findings
reported by Drake et al. (2001), Kale
et al. (2007) and Patel et al. (2009).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the body and texture and acidity score decreased significantly (p<0.01) in the carrot yoghurt samples while the carrot juice was increased levels of 0, 2 and 5% in all yoghurt samples. The flavour and colour and appearance scores were significantly (p<0.01) higher in the samples prepared with 2% carrot juice as compared to yoghurt prepared with 0 and 5% levels of carrot juice in all the groups.
Aly, S.A., E.A. Galal and N.A. Elewa, 2004. Carrot yoghurt: Sensory, chemical, microbiological properties and consumer acceptance. Pak. J. Nutr., 3: 322-330.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Beom, J., S. Yong and H. Myung, 1998. Antioxidant activity of vegetables and blends in iron catalyzed model system. J. Food Sci. Nur., 3: 309-314.
Drake, M., P. Gerard and X. Chen, 2001. Effects of sweetener, sweetener concentration and fruit flavor on sensory properties of soy fortified yogurt. J. Sensory Stud., 16: 393-405.
Ghadge, P.N., K. Prasad and P.S. Kadam, 2008. Effect of fortification on the physico-chemical and sensory properties of buffalo milk yoghurt. Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem., 7: 2890-2899.
Direct Link |
Guven, M. and O.B. Karaca, 2002. The effects of varying sugar content and fruit concentration on the physical properties of vanilla and fruit ice-cream-type frozen yogurts. Int. J. Dairy Technol., 55: 27-31.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
Hong, L.G., 1980. The Comparative Nutritional Roles of Sago and Cassava in Indonesia. In: Sago: The Equatorial Swamp as a Natural Resource, Stanton, W.R. and M. Flach (Eds.). Publ. Martinus Nijhoff, Hague, The Netherlands.
Ikken, Y., I. Cambero, M.L. Marin, A. Martinez, A.I. Haza and P. Morales, 1998. Antimutagenic effect of fruit and vegetable aqueous extracts against N-nitrosamines evaluated by the ames test. J. Agric. Food Chem., 46: 5194-5200.
Kale, K.G., K.D. Chavan, B.K. Pawar and D.N. Bhosale, 2007. Effect of addition of different levels of pomegranate fruit and sugar on sensory quality of yoghurt. J. Dairying Foods Home Sci., 26: 147-152.
Direct Link |
Karagul-Yuceer, Y., J.C. Wilson and C.H. White, 2001. Formulations and processing of yogurt affect the microbial quality of carbonated yogurt.. J. Dairy Sci., 84: 543-550.
CrossRef | PubMed | Direct Link |
Lovely, C. and J.F. Meullenet, 2009. Comparison of preference mapping techniques for the optimization of strawberry yogurt. J. Sensory Stud., 24: 457-478.
Marona, D. and G. Pedrigon, 2004. Yoghurt feeding inhibits promotion and progression of cancer. Med. Sci. Monit., 10: 96-104.
Nelson, J.A. and G.M. Trout, 1981. Judging of Dairy Products. 4th Edn., Academic Press, London, pp: 345-567.
Patel, P.R., J. Singh and D.C. Rai, 2009. Quality evaluation of sago and carrot juice based sweetened yoghurt. Vegetable Sci., 36: 372-374.
Patil, A.P., D.N. Bhosale and K.D. Chavan, 2009. Preparation and quality evaluation of guava yoghurt from cow milk. J. Food Sci. Technol., 46: 80-82.
Raum, R., 2003. Microbiological quality of health food and organic food. Neth. Milk Dairy J., 14: 130-134.
Schieber, A., M. Max and R. Carle, 2002. Simultaneous determination of carotenes tacopheral in ATBC drink by high performance liquid chromatography. Food Chem., 76: 357-362.
Seo, A. and M. Yu, 2003. Toxigenic Fungi and Mycotoxins. In: Hand Book of Industrial Mycology, Andrea, Z. (Ed.). Academic Press, London, pp: 233-246.
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1994. Statistical Methods. 8th Edn., East-West Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Sun, M.S., K. Mihyang and J.B. Song, 2001. Cytotoxicity and quinine reductase induced effects of Daucas carrot leaf extracts on human cancer cells. Korean J. Food Sci., 30: 86-89.
Vahedi, N., M.M. Tehrani and F. Shahidi, 2008. Optimizing of fruit yoghurt formulation and evaluating its quality during storage. Am. Euras. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 3: 922-927.
Direct Link |
Walkunde, T.R., D.K. Kamble and B.K. Pawar, 2009. Sensory quality of yoghurt from cow milk by utilizing guava fruit. Asian J. Anim. Sci., 3: 99-102.