A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT (FARM)
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE B.Sc. IN FOOD SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
page
Dedication
Acknowledgements
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objectives
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review
2.2 Types of Yogurt
2.2.1 Pasteurized Stirred Yogurt
2.2.2 Strained Yogurt
2.2.3 Bio-Yogurt
2.2.4 Organic Yogurt
2.2.5 Frozen Yogurt
2.2.6 Concentrated Yogurt
2.3 Nutritional Value and Health Benefits
2.4 Utilization of Yogurt
2.5 Production of Yogurt
2.5.1 The flowchart for yogurt production
2.6 Fermentation
2.6.1 History of tiger-nut
2.6.2 Varieties of tiger nut
2.6.3
Utilization of Tiger Nut
2.6.4 Chemical Composition of Tiger-Nut
2.6.5 Health and Nutritional Properties of
Tiger-Nut
2.7 History of Coconut
2.7.1 Nutritional Value of Coconut Milk
2.7.2
Health Benefit of Coconut Milk
2. 8. Rheology
2.8.1. Significance
in Food Industry
2.9 Flow Models for Rheological Properties of
Fluids
2.9.1. Newtonian Fluids
2.9.2. Non-Newtonian Fluids
2.10 Time-Independent Fluids
2.10.1 Bingham Plastic
Fluids
2.10.2. Power-Law Fluids
2.10.2.1. Shear Thinning Fluids
2.10.2.2 Shear Thickening Fluids
2.10.2.3. Herschel-Bulkley
Fluids
2.11 Time-Dependent Fluids
2.11.1 Thixotropic Fluids
2.11.2 Rheopectic Fluids
2.12. Variables Affecting Viscosity and Flow
Behavior
Parameters
2.12.1. Effect of
Temperature
2.12.2. Effect
of Concentration
2.12.3 Effect of Other
Ingredients
2.13. Measurement
of Flow
2.14. Rotational Viscometers
2.14.1. Concentric
Cylinder Viscometer
3.0 CHAPTER THREE
3.1 Sources of Samples
3.2 Sample Preparation
3.2.1 Preparation of Milk
3.2.1.
Preparation of Coconut Milk
3.2.1.1 Preparation of Tiger- Nut Milk
3.2.1.7.1
Yogurt Preparation
3.2.1.2 Preparation of Various Blends Yogurt
3.3 Analysis of Sample
3.3.1 Physico- Chemical Analysis
3.3.1.1 pH
3.3.1.2 Total Titratable Acidity (TTA)
3.3.1.3 Total Solids (TS)
3.3.1.4 Total Solubility (OBRIX)
3.2.1.6 Fat Content
3.2.1.6 Determination of Ash
3.3.18 Moisture Content (Determination)
3.3.1.9
Carbohydrate (CHO)
3.4 Viscosity
Measurement
3.4.1 Flow
Characteristics
3.5 Sensory
Analysis
3.6 Statistical
Analysis
References
ABSTRACT
The
rheological characteristics of yogurt blend with tigernut and
coconut milk
were evaluated. The flow behaviour index (n) was characterized by pseudoplastic
behaviour (0.263 – 0.853) with shear thinning effect, and increasing shear
stress with shear rate. The consistency coefficient index, (k) increase with
increase in coconut blends as well as flow behaviour index (n). The physical
properties result showed that the pH of samples 100%C, 50%T: 50%C, 70%T: 30%C
and 100% whole milk yogurt are significantly different at (p>0.05) but
sample 100%T, 30%T: 70%C and 40%T: 40%C: 20%M are not significantly different
at (p>0.05). The acidity percentage of all the samples are not significantly
different from each other at (p>0.05). The total solid of sample of the
sample 30%T: 70%C and 50%TC, 30%T: 70% and 70%T: 30%C, and 40%T: 40%C: 20M and
100% whole milk yogurt are not significantly different at (p>0.05). From the
brix result, all the samples are significantly different except sample 30%T:
70%C and 50%T: 50%C. The sensory evaluation of yogurt produced from coconut –
tigernut milk studied did nut show a deferent trend in variation statistical
(p>0.05) between the samples produced in terms of appearance, tastes,
flavour and texture.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5. 1 Conclusion
The
results obtained from the physical properties indicate the pontenelitity blend
of coconut milk and tigernut milk in the production of yogurt.
The results
obtained from the reheological study, shown that the apparent viscosity decreased
with increase in shear rate indicating shear thinning behaviour characteristics.
The coconut Tigernut yogurt blends studied exhibited pseudoplastic behaviour
because their “n” values were generally below I (n<1) it was evident that
shear stress also increased with increased in shear rate.
The sensory
evaluation of yogurt produced from coconut – tigernut milk studied did not show
a different trend in variation statistical (p>0.0.5) between samples
produced in terms of appearance, testes, flavour and texture. However, there
was no significant different (p> 0.05) between sample 100% tigernut yogurt,
100% coconut yogurt, 30% tigernut yogurt + 70% coconut yogurt 50% tigernut
yogurt + 50% cocnut yogurt and 70% tigerunt + 30% coconut yogurt in their
appearance, flavour, taste, texture and general acceptance. The increase in
protein demand in developing countries led to effort in finding alternative sources
of protein in plant seeds. However, data obtained from this study shows that
coconut – tigernut yogurt could be helpful in meeting a significant portion of
the daily needs of these nutrients.
5.2 Recommendation
The high
cost of imported milk and milk production in Nigeria and Africa seen to have
made consumers more ready to accept milk produced from plant source.
This
research work revealed that products from tigernut and coconut should be
encourage so as to solve the problem of protein calorie malnutrition in Africa
and improve the protein intake of the Nigeria population.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.R., and Moss M.O. (1999). Food microbiology.
The Roray Society of Chemistry Thomas Graham House, Sceince park, Cambridge.
Adejuyitan, J.A., Otunota E.T., Akende E.A., Bolarinwa
I.F., and Oladokun F.M (2009). Some physiochemical properties of flour obtained
form formations of tiger nut (Cypenus esculentus) sources form a market in
Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Afr. Journal of Food
science. 3:51-55.
Anderson, J. W., Smith B.M., and Custafon N.J. (1994).
Health benefit and practical aspects of high fibre diets. Am. J. clin. Nutr.
59:1242-1247.
Anu Chacko, Hari Muraleedhara and Sastry P.S (2010)
Effect of storage conditions on the microbial quality of fermented foods. World applied sciences Journal 9(12):1365-1369.
Barnes H. A., Hutton, J. F., Walters, K. (1989).
An Introduction to Rheology. Elsevier Science B.V.,
Netherlands.
Belewu, M.A. and Abodurin. O.A. (2008). Preparation of
kuunu from unexpected rich food sources, tigernut (Cyperus esculentus). Pake.J.
Nutr., 7:109-111.
Belewu, M.A., and Belewu K.Y. (2007). Comparative
physic – coconut milk sources. Int J. agric biof. 5: 785-787.
Belewu, M.A., Belewu K.Y., and Bamidele R.A. (2010).
Cyper-coconut yoghurt: preparation, composition and organoleptie qualities.
Partisan Journal of food science and
technology 1(1): 010-072.
Beniwal, R.S., Vincent C.A.,Lenot., Sudhir N., Thomas
F.I; Rauf A.C and Usman A.A; (2003)”A Randomized trial of yogurt for prevention
of Antibiotic- associated Diarrhea”, Digestive Diseases and science 48:10:2077-2082
(October, 2003) doi:10.1023/A:1026/55 328638
Boume, M. C. (1982). Food Texture and Viscosity:
Concept and Measurement. Academic Press, Inc., USA.
Brainy dictionary (2005). Online www- brainy dictionary. com/milk. 190115
David B. Fankhauser, (2003) yogurt making illustrated
by professor of Biology and Chemistry U.C. Clermont collage Batavia OH 45/03.
Ekeanyanwu, R.C., Obioma N., and Ononogbu I.C.(2010) The
photochemical effects of Nigerian tiger nut (Cyperus eseulentus L)Tuber.
Pakisten journal of nutrition (7):709- 715.
Elson, M and Hass, M.D (2005). Dairy products online www. health. net /Scr Lartich asp?
Ernest, R.V.(1996) Elementary food science: 4thEdition.
International Thomason publishing USA.
Geankoplis, J.
C. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit Operations. Prentice-Hall
International, Inc., USA.
Ghanson, M.A.(2008). The use of tiger nut (Cyperus
esculentus), cow milk, and their composite as substrates for yogurt
production. HND Dissertation, Cape coast
polytechnic, Cape coats, Ghana.
Helferich, W. and
Westhoff D., (1980). Yogurt: All About It.
Herh, P. K. W., Cob, S. M., Roye, N. and Hedman K.
(2000), Rheology of Foods: New techniques, capabilities, and Instruments. www.astrheosystems
.com (07/12/05)
Ihekoonye, A, and Ngoody P.O. (1985). Integrated food science and technology for
the Tropics Macmillan Publishers Ltd
Kay, D.E. (1987) Roots
Crops: crop and product Digest No2. 2nd ed. Tropical development and research institute.
Kinsella, J. E. (1976), Functional properties of
protein foods; A survey, Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition 228:
23 0-234.
Kolars, J.C. (1984) yogurt an autodigestiny source of
lactose. N. Engl. J med; 310:1-3-
Kosikowski F.V. (1982), Cheese and fermented milk
foods, published by Kosikowski F.V. and Associates, New York, pp. 1-711.
Lewis, M. J. (1987). Physical properties of Food and
Food processing systems. Chi Chester Ellis Horwood Ltd. Pp108-135
Manohar, R. S., Manohart, B., Rao, P. H. 1998.
Rheological Characterization of Wheat Porridge (cooked dalia), a Semi-liquid
Breakfast Food. Journal of Cereal Science. 27: 103-108.
Mattinez, V. (2003). Scientific analysis of effects of
tiger-nut on Heart diseases and Reluled Aspects. Tiger-nut and Reluled Aspects
tiger-nut and Health, pp. 1-2.
Moore, B. (2004). Yogurt. The Austratian Oxford
Dictionary 2nd ed. Oxford university press, London.
Nam Sun Wang, (2008). Yogurt fermentation with
lactobacillus cultures. Department of Chemical and Bimolecular engineering
university of manyland college park. (MD 20742-2111 ENCH 485.
Nwaoguikpe, R.N. (2010). The photochemical, proximate
and amino acid compositions of the
extracts of two varieties of tiger-nut (Cyperus esculentus) and their
effects on sickle cell. Hemoglobin polymerization. Journal of medicine and medical sciences. 1(11): 543-549.
Nwokolo, E. (1985). Nutritive quality of seeds of
African Breadfruit (Treeculia africanum). Tropical science.
Odoemelan, S.A. (2003). Chemical Composition and
functional properties of conophernaut flour (retracarpridium conophorium). International Journal of food science and Technology. 38:729-734.
Okafor, J.N.C., Mord J.I. Ozuma A.U., Solomon M.H.,
characteriszation of contaminants in tiger-nut (yellow variety). Proceedings of
27th annual. Nigerian Institute of food science and technology
(NIFST) conference, Oct. 13-17, Nigeria, pp 210-211.
Oledele, A.K. and Aina J.O. (2007). Chemical composition
and functional properties of flour produced from two varieties of tigernut (Cyperus
esculentus). African Journal of
Biotechnology, 6(21): 2473-2476.
Pelegrine, D. H., Silva, F. C., Gasparetto C. A. 2002.
Rheological Behavior of Pineapple and Mango Pulps. Lebensm.-Wiss. u-Technol.
35: 645-648.
Rosenthal, Sylvia Dworsky, (1978). Fresh food.
Bookthrift co.p. 157. http.//books. Google.com/booksid =6zwvaaaayaaj.Retrieved
11 AUGUST, 2009.
Snyder H.E. and Kwon T.W., (1987). Soybean
Utilization. AVI Connecticut New York. Pp 163 184
Sopade, P.A. and Kassum, A.L. (1992). Rheological
characteristics of Nigerian liquid and semi-liquid food. Kunuzaki and
knnungyada. Nigerian food Journal 10:23-33.
Steffe, J.F. 1996. Rheological Methods in Food Process
Engineering. Freeman Press, USA.
Van Wazer, J.R., Lyons, J.W. 1966. Viscosity and Flow
Measurement. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
Wikipedia, (2005). On line
@www.cu.wikipedi.org/pasteurization 1208-11
Worlow R. W., 1992. Rheological Techniques. Ellis
Horwood Limited, England.
Alvarez, E; Cancela, A. and Maceiras, R. (2005).
Rheological behaviour of powdered baby
foods . internation journal of food properties,8,79-88.
Ariahu, C.C., Risikat, B and Tiamiyu O.I (2001).
Influence of soyflour and temperature on tilapia fish homogenate. African
Journal Environmental study. 2: 138 – 141
Alakali, J. S., Ijabo, O.J. and satimehin, A.A.
(2003). Rheelogical Characteristics of Canarium (canarium schweinfurhil oil.
Journal of pure and Applied Science. 6(2): 298-303.
Awonorin, S. O. (1993). Rheological and mechanical
properties of Bvitamin retention and sensory characteristics of sawsage made
from broiler chicken and guinea fowl. Lebensmittal – wess – U – Techal. 20:
291-300.
Irtwange, S. V., Alakali J. S. and Moses. M. (2009)
Rheological characteristics of food gum (Cissus populnea). African Journal of
food science vol. 3 (9) 237-242
Ikegwu, O. J. and Ekwu, F. C. (2009) Rheological and
functional properties of “achi” flour as influenced by processing time Nigerian
food jounal vol. 27(2): 88 – 29
Earle, R. L. (2004). Unit Oreration in food
processing. Web Edition, publisher, the New Zealand institute of food science
and technology (inc). http://www.nzifst.com.
Lee, F. A. (1985). Basic food chemistry 2nd ed.
AVI publishing company inc. p. 363.
Kazanaz, N and fields M. L. (1981). Nutritional
improvement of sorghum by ferment toil J. Food science 49:819 – 821 (2009).
Sanful, R. E. (2009) promotion of count in the
production of yogurt
RAO, A. M. (1999). Rheology of fluid and Semi solid
foods – Aspen I publishers: Gaithersburg, Maryland Pp 204.
King A. J; (2005): High pressure processing of corn
and wheat starch http://www.kb.osu.edu/dspace/bistream/Alexanderking.Pdp.07/20/05.
Abu-Jdayil, B. (2003). Modeling the time-dependent
reheological behaviour of semisolid food stuffs. Journal of food Engineering,
57,97-102.
Kroger, M. (1976). Quality of yogurt Journal of Dairy
science, vol: 59: 344-350
Brennan, J. G., Butters, J. R., Cowell, N. D. and
Lilly, A. E. V. (1980). Has operations De la Ingenieria de Las Alimentos, Ed;
Acribia: Zaragoza, Spain.
Dail, R.V. and steffe, J. F. (1990a) Dilatancy
instarch solution under acid aseptic processing conditions. Journal of food
science, 55,1764-1765.
Dail, R.V and Steffe, J. F. (1990b). Rheological
characterization of crosslinked waxy maize starch solutions under low acid
aseptic processing condition using tube viscometer techniques. Journal of food
science, 55,1660-1665.
Harrison, Lo and Cunningham, Fo(1985). Factors
influencing the quality of Mayonnaise: a review. Journal of food quality
8,1-20.
APPENDIX 1
TASTE
|
Panelist
|
50% C&50%T
|
70%T&
30%C
|
30%T&
70%C
|
Control
|
100%C
|
100%T
|
40%T&40%
C& 20%M
|
TOTAL
|
|
1
|
7
|
8
|
7
|
9
|
4
|
7
|
8
|
50
|
|
2
|
7
|
7
|
3
|
9
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
42
|
|
3
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
8
|
4
|
5
|
9
|
42
|
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
6
|
5
|
4
|
7
|
27
|
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
7
|
7
|
8
|
6
|
9
|
46
|
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
8
|
5
|
6
|
8
|
42
|
|
7
|
5
|
7
|
7
|
8
|
7
|
8
|
8
|
50
|
|
8
|
5
|
7
|
3
|
8
|
4
|
5
|
8
|
40
|
|
9
|
6
|
6
|
4
|
9
|
1
|
5
|
7
|
38
|
|
10
|
6
|
7
|
3
|
9
|
4
|
5
|
8
|
42
|
|
11
|
7
|
5
|
2
|
9
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
37
|
|
12
|
6
|
5
|
4
|
8
|
5
|
6
|
8
|
42
|
|
13
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
4
|
5
|
9
|
41
|
|
14
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
8
|
5
|
4
|
8
|
41
|
|
15
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
9
|
4
|
5
|
9
|
39
|
|
16
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
9
|
6
|
6
|
7
|
44
|
|
17
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
8
|
3
|
2
|
6
|
33
|
|
18
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
8
|
4
|
5
|
7
|
41
|
|
19
|
6
|
8
|
6
|
9
|
3
|
7
|
8
|
47
|
|
20
|
6
|
5
|
6
|
9
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
48
|
|
Total
|
104
|
116
|
92
|
167
|
86
|
104
|
159
|
828
|
|
Mean
|
5.2
|
5.8
|
4.6
|
8.4
|
4.3
|
5.2
|
8.0
|
|
CF = (828)2 = 685584 = 4897.0
20X7
140
SSS = (104)2 +
(116)2 + (92)2 + (167)2 + (86)2
(104)2 + (159)2 – 4897.0 20
= 104118 – 4897.0 = 308.9
20
SSP =
(50)2x2 + (42)2x5 + (27)2x1
+ (46) 2x1 + (40) 2x1 + (38) 2x1 – 4897.0
+ (37) 2x1 + (41) 2x3 + (39)
2x1 + (44) 2x2 + (33) 2x1 + (47) 2x1
7
34812 –
4897.0 = 76.1
7
SST =
(1)
2x4 + (2) 2x2 + (3) 2x7 + (4) 2x20 + (5)
2x30 + (6) 2x22 +
(7) 2x18 + (8) 2x22 + (9) 2x15 – 4897.0
5442 – 4897.0 = 545
SSE =
= SST - (SSS
+ SSP)
= 545 –
(308.9 + 76.1) = 160
Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) table
|
Source
of variation
|
df
|
ss
|
ms
|
Fcal
|
Ftab
|
|
Samples
|
6
|
308.9
|
51.5
|
|
|
|
Panelist
|
19
|
76.1
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
Error
|
114
|
160
|
1.40
|
36.8
|
2.17
|
Since
Fcal > Ftab, there is significant difference between the sample.
|
Sample
|
50%C&50%T
|
70%T&30%C
|
30%T&70%C
|
Control
|
100%C
|
100%T
|
40%T&40%C& 20%M
|
|
Mean
|
5.2
|
5.8
|
4.6
|
8.4
|
4.3
|
5.2
|
8.0
|
SX = Ms
error
No of panelist
= 1.40 = 0.07 = 0.26
20
LSD = SSR X SX
SSR = 4.24
LSD = 4.24
X 0.26 = 1.10
Any
2 samples means differing by 1.10 or more are significantly different at 5%
Sample 8.4 – 8.0 = 0.4 n. s. d.
8.4 - 5.8 = 2.6 s.d
8.4 - 5.2 = 3.2 s.d
8.4 - 4.6 = 3.86 s.d
8.4 - 4.3 = 4.1 s.d
8.0 - 5.8 = 12.2 s.d
8.0 - 5.2 = 2.8 s.d
8.0 - 4.6 = 3.6 s.d
8.0 - 4.3 = 3.7 s.d
5.8 - 5.2 = 0.6 n.s.d
5.8 - 4.6 = 1.2 s.d
5.8 - 4.3 = 1.5 s.d
5.2 - 4.6 = 0.6 n.s.d
5.2 - 4.3 = 0.9 n.s.d
4.6 - 4.3 = 0.3 n.s.d
|
Sample
|
50%C&50%T
|
70%T
&30%C
|
30%T&
70%C
|
Control
|
100%C
|
100%T
|
40%T&40%C& 20%M
|
|
Mean
|
5.2b
|
5.8b
|
4.6bc
|
8.4a
|
4.3bc
|
5.2b
|
8.0a
|
APPENDIX 11
FLAVOUR
Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) Table
|
Source
of variance
|
df
|
ss
|
ms
|
Fcal
|
Ftab
|
|
Samples
|
6
|
222.4
|
37.1
|
|
|
|
Panelist
|
19
|
47.5
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
Error
|
114
|
210.5
|
1.46
|
25.4
|
2.17
|
Since Fcal > Ftab, there is
significant difference between the samples.
|
Sample
|
50%C&50%T
|
70%T&
30%C
|
30%T&
70%C
|
Control
|
100%C
|
100%T
|
40%T&40%
C& 20%M
|
|
Mean
|
5.5
|
5.3
|
4.7
|
7.8
|
4.9
|
4.8
|
7.8
|
Arrange the mean in order of
magnitude
|
Sample
|
50%C&50%T
|
70%T&30%C
|
30%T&70%C
|
Control
|
100%C
|
100%T
|
|
Mean
|
7.8
|
5.5
|
5.3
|
4.9
|
4.8
|
4.7
|
Arrange the mean