Preparation of Semi-dairy Yoghurt from Soy bean

Sampson Gilbert Owiah^1, , Duah Naomi¹, Gyima Vida² and Alhassan Martha³

¹Department of Hospitality and Tourism Education, University of Education, Winneba

²Department of Food Science and Technology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi

³Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Development Studies, Tamale

Cite this paper:
Sampson Gilbert Owiah, Duah Naomi, Gyima Vida and Alhassan Martha. Preparation of Semi-dairy Yoghurt from Soy bean. American Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2017; 5(1):1-5. doi: 10.12691/ajfst-5-1-1

Abstract

The study was undertaken to have soymilk used as an alternative low cost plant protein product in the production of yoghurt. It was in effect to also address the allergy phenomenon of some sections of vegetarianism and minimize post-harvest losses of soybean which has been underutilized. Semi-dairy yoghurts of cow-soymilk were produced to evaluate its proximate composition and consumer acceptability. Soybean was purchased from the central and Bantama markets and the soy and cow milks prepared at Boadi farms, KNUST. Four different yoghurt products; SDY01 (100%CM), SDY02 (80%CM: 20%SM), SDY03 (60%CM: 40%SM) and SDY04 (40%CM: 60%SM). Samples were examined proximately according to AACC 2000 standard of analysis while sensory evaluation was performed according to the 7 points score hedonic scale. Excel database was used to analysis result at 5% level of significance. Average proximate values for moisture 20.00±0.76; Ash 2.36±0.10; crude fat 4.00±0.29 and carbohydrate 75.92±1.35 contents were highest for sample SDY01 and least for SDY04. Crude fibre and protein were however, higher for SDY04, 2.25±0.81 and 23.00±2.85 respectively. That is, soymilk could contribute considerable amount of fibre and protein to the nutritive spectrum of diets. Nonetheless, there were no significant differences at P < 0.05 between mean values. Sensory analysis according to the hedonic scale inference showed that the four semi-dairy yoghurt under the food characteristics evaluated were fairly “moderately liked” and “liked very much” by the range 5.12 to 6.24, in the exception of SDY02 that recorded 4.94 implying a “neither liked nor disliked” assertion for thickness and sourness food characteristics. No significant difference existed between these values for all the samples. Per this study, soymilk could possibly be used as a composite raw material in the production of yoghurt and thus to ensure for better and greater utilization of the soybean.

Keywords:
cow-soymilk composite/semi-dairy yoghurt proximate characteristics sensory characteristics consumer acceptability

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Tull, A. (1996). Food and Nutrition, Oxford University Press: 109-111.
[2]	Wood, B. J. B. (1985). Microbiology of fermented foods Vol. 1. London: Elsevier Science Publishers. In: Viability of lactic acid microflora in different types of yoghurt, (eds.) Birollo, G.A.,
[3]	Roissart, H., and Luquet, F. M. (1994). BacteÂriesLactiques: Aspects fondamentauxet technologiques (Vol. 2). Grenoble, France: Lorica. In: Viability of lactic acid microflora in different types of yoghurt, (eds.).
[4]	Sanful, R.E., (2009).Promotion of Coconut in the Production of Yoghurt. African Journal of Food Science 3 (5): 147-149.
[5]	Flynn, A. and Cashman, K. (1997). Nutritional aspects of minerals in bovine and human milks. In: Advanced dairy chemistry Vol. 3, Fox P.F., (ed.). London: Chapman and Hall : 257-302.
[6]	Fernandes, C.F., Shahani, K.M.,andAmer, M.A. (1987). Therapeutic role of dietary lactobacilli and lactobacillic fermented dairyproducts. E M S Microbiol Rev, 46: 343-356.
[7]	Fernandes, C.F. and Shahani, K.M. (1990). Anticarcinogenic and immunological properties of dietary lactobacilli. Journal of Food Protect, 53: 704-10.
[8]	Colombel, J.F., Cortot, A., Neu, C. and Romand, C. (1987). Yoghurt with Bifidobucteriurnfongurnreduces erythromycin induced gastrointestinal effects. Lancet, ii: 43.
[9]	Riener, J., Noci, F., Cronin, D.A., Morgan, D.J., Lyng, J.G. (2010). A comparison of selected quality characteristics of yoghurts prepared from thermosonicated and conventionally heated milks. Food Chemistry, 119 (3): 1108-1113.
[10]	Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2005). A.O.A.C. No. 945.38, No. 936.07, No.920.86 and No. 996.11. Chapter 32. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. Horwith, W. and Latimer, G.W. eds. A.O.A.C. International Suite 500, Maryland, U.S.A. pp. 2,5,18 and 27.
[11]	Ihekoronye, A.I and Ngoddy, P.O (1985).Integrated Food Science and Technology for the Tropics.Macmillian Publishers Ltd, London and Oxford.Pp 283-292.
[12]	Borget, M. 1992. Food legumes. Macmillan Publishers. London.
[13]	Parman, G. K. (1968). Fortification of Cereals and Cereal Products with Proteins and Amino Acids. Journal of Agriculture Food Chemistry 16.
[14]	Potter NN, Hotchkiss JH (1996). Food Science (5/e). CBS Publisher and Distributors, New Delhi.
[15]	Alvarez, F., Argüello, M., Cabero,M., Riera, F.A., Alvarez, R., Iglesias J.R. and Granda, J. (1998). Fermentation of concentrated skim-milk.Effects of different protein/lactose ratios obtained by ultrafiltration-diafiltration, J. Sci. Food Agric. In: Production and evaluation of a high protein version of non-fat yogurt, (ed.).
[16]	Magenis, R.B., Prudencio, E.S., Amboni, D.M.C., Junior, N.G.C., Oliveira, R.V.B., Soldi, V. and Benedet, H.D. (2006). Compositional and physical properties of yogurts manufactured from milk and whey cheese concentrated by ultrafiltration. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. In: Production and evaluation of a high protein version of non-fat yogurt, (ed.).
[17]	Abd El-khair, A.A. (2009). Production and evaluation of a high protein version of non-fat yogurt. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 5(4): 310-316.