Comparative studies on the effect of probiotic additions on the physicochemical and microbiological properties of yoghurt made from soymilk and cow's milk during refrigeration storage (R2)

被引:38
|
作者
Cui, Li [1 ]
Chang, Sam K. C. [2 ,3 ]
Nannapaneni, Rama [3 ]
机构
[1] Jiangsu Acad Agr Sci, Inst Farm Prod Proc, Nanjing 210014, Peoples R China
[2] Mississippi State Univ, Costal Res & Extens Ctr, Expt Seafood Proc Lab, Mississippi State, MS 39567 USA
[3] Mississippi State Univ, Dept Food Sci Nutr & Hlth Promot, Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA
关键词
Yoghurt; Probiotic; Soymilk; Milk; Microstructure; Physicochemical characteristics; LACTIC-ACID BACTERIA; RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES; SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS; FERMENTED SOYMILK; STARTER CULTURES; VIABILITY; BIFIDOBACTERIA; LACTOBACILLI; ANTIOXIDANT; GELATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107474
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
Soymilk yoghurt is an option to consumers who are allergic to cow's milk yoghurt. Probiotics can provide gut health. The objective of this study was to investigate the physicochemical characteristics, including pH, colour, firmness and syneresis of yoghurt made from soymilk and cow's milk as affected by the addition of probiotics during storage at 4 degrees C for 28 days at 7-day intervals. Microstructure and bacterial populations were also determined. Two types of yoghurt were prepared. The first type was prepared with the additions of commercially available yogurt starter containing Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus (LB) and Streptococcus thermophilus (ST). The second type was prepared with the same yogurt starters plus three probiotics, including Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 (BB), L. acidophilus La-5 (LA), and L. rhamnosus (LGG). Probiotics reduced syneresis and increased compact network of soymilk yoghurt significantly (p < 0.05) and shortened the time needed to reach pH 4.5 in both cow's milk and soymilk yogurts. During storage, the pH of cow's milk yoghurts slightly decreased (4.37-4.26 with probiotics and 4.54 to 4.33 without probiotics), however, the pH of soymilk yoghurts remained relatively constant. The firmness of yoghurt made from cow's milk was significantly decreased with the addition of probiotics, however, it remained stable in soy milk yoghurt during storage. Soymilk yoghurt (34-50 g force during compression) was generally firmer than cow's milk yoghurts (9.8-12.5 g force). The cow's milk yogurt had slightly higher counts of ST, LB and LA than soymilk yogurt, but the count of BB in soymilk yogurt is significantly higher than that in cow's milk yogurt.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 5 条
  • [1] Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory properties of Sudanese yoghurt (zabadi) made from goat's milk
    Eissa, Eshraga A.
    Babiker, Elfadil E.
    Yagoub, Abu ElGasim A.
    [J]. ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE, 2011, 51 (01) : 53 - 59
  • [2] Physicochemical and Rheological Properties of Stirred Yoghurt during Storage Induced from High-Intensity Thermosonicated Goat and Cow Milk
    Ragab, Eman Saad
    Zhang, Shuwen
    Korma, Sameh A.
    Buniowska-Olejnik, Magdalena
    Nasser, Sahar Abd Allah
    Esatbeyoglu, Tuba
    Lv, Jiaping
    Nassar, Khaled Sobhy
    [J]. FERMENTATION-BASEL, 2023, 9 (01):
  • [3] Effect of whey pH at drainage on physicochemical, biochemical, microbiological, and sensory properties of Mozzarella cheese made from buffalo milk during refrigerated storage
    Yazici, F.
    Dervisoglu, M.
    Akgun, A.
    Aydemir, O.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 (11) : 5010 - 5019
  • [4] Effect of ultrafiltered milk permeate and non-dairy creamer powder concentration on low phenylalanine yoghurt's physicochemical properties during storage
    Goldar, Parisa
    Givianrad, Mohammad Hadi
    Shams, Akbar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MYSORE, 2016, 53 (07): : 3053 - 3059
  • [5] Effect of ultrafiltered milk permeate and non-dairy creamer powder concentration on low phenylalanine yoghurt’s physicochemical properties during storage
    Parisa Goldar
    Mohammad Hadi Givianrad
    Akbar Shams
    [J]. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2016, 53 : 3053 - 3059