PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF YOGHURT PRODUCED USING SWEET LUPINE, CHICKPEA FLOUR AND THEIR DERIVATIVES | ||||
| Fayoum Journal of Agricultural Research and Development | ||||
| Article 1, Volume 20, Issue 1, January 2006, Page 1-8 PDF (334.5 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Research articles. | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/fjard.2006.197561 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Ashraf I. Nagib1; Eshak M. El - Hadidy1; Emad S. Shaker2 | ||||
| 1Food Technol. Res. Inst., Agric. Res. Center, Giza, Egypt | ||||
| 2Agricultural Chemistry Dept., Minia University, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Sweet lupine (L) and chickpea (C) flour, protein concentrate (PC), protein isolate (PI) and fibrous residue (FR) have been examined for their properties and used in making yoghurt. The chemical analysis showed higher protein content for sweet lupine (88.32 and 64.52% for PI and PC, respectively) than chickpea (83.02 and 57.49% for PI and PC, respectively). Similar order has been noticed for protein solubility using different solvents. The crude fiber content was higher in chickpea (7.32 and 0.32% for PC and PI, respectively) than lupine (4.20 and 0.18 for PC and PI, respectively). The sensory evaluation revealed an improvement in the color, texture and appearance of yoghurt made using 0.25% CPC. Moreover, CPI improved the color, odor, texture and appearance at 0.25 and 0.50%. The different concentrations of LFR and CFR improved the color, texture and appearance. The microbiological analysis showed prospective results with using different concentrations of LPC, CPC, LPI and CPI. Where, the total bacterial count was decreased except for 0.25% LPC, The yeast and mould content was decreased as well except for 0.25% CPC. In all the tested samples, the coliform group was not detected. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Lupine; chickpea; protein concentrate; protein isolate; yoghurt | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 49 PDF Download: 131 |
||||
