DOI: 10.17957/JGIASS/3.4.724 http://www.jgiass.com
EXTRACTION OF SOYA MILK FROM DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF SOYA BEANS AND COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR BETTER NUTRITION WITH
BUFFALO MILK
Azam Shakeel
1,*, Muhammad Saeed
1, Hafiz Khuram Wasim Aslam
1, Nighat Naheed
3, Muhammad Shoaib
2, Muhammad Siddique Raza
1and Anam Noor
31National Institute of Food Science and Technology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad-Pakistan
2State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, Synergetic Innovation Center of Food Safety and Nutrition, School of Food Science and Technology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214122, People’s Republic of China
3Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture Faisalabad-Pakistan
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: azam1087@gmail.com
Soy foods have high plant protein content and contain polyphenol components, such as isoflavones. Different varieties of soya bean (Rawal 1, NARC 2, Ajmeri. William 82. Line 1 (SA-7260) and Line 2 (PSC-60) were compared and analyzed their nutritional and sensory characteristics. The better selected (William 82) variety of soya beans is compared with the buffalo milk, its nutritional values, taste and other parameters. This study examined the result of storage temperature on the shell-life of soya milk keep at 4ºC. The use of soybean for the assembly of soy milk was studied. Soy milk was extracted from whole and dehulled seeds. All soy milk samples were analyzed for proximate composition (moisture%, ash%, total solids, fat) and therefore the organoleptic tests (color, appearance, texture, taste, flavor and overall acceptability) of the soy milk samples were evaluated to work out the shelf-stability of the merchandise throughout refrigeration and temperature storage. Proximate analysis of soymilk and buffalo milk showed that there was little difference between soymilk and buffalo milk as showed in tables maximum nutritional values as protein, fat, milk yield and carbohydrates 4.81, 2.09, 93 and 6.28% respectively for soymilk and for buffalo milk maximum nutritional values as protein, fat, milk yield and carbohydrates 4.36- 4.78, 6.4, 94 and 5.26% respectively. The study was designed to examine the effect of temperature on the shell-life of soymilk stored at 4ºC. It also aimed at developing shelf stable soya milk.
Keywords: Soy foods, polyphenol components, buffalo milk, shelf life, proximate composition, nutritional values
INTRODUCTION
Soybean is very important oil seed crop all over the world containing upto 18 - 22% oil and 40 – 42%. In Pakistan the cultivation of soybean is not as much that it stands in world level due to the less awareness. Taking a various trail, some good quality of soybean varieties are selected by Americans.
High quality of protein containing high nutritional value. Due to its high nutritional value it is an excellent source of oil and protein.in food industry it was commonly used for the flour, margarine, biscuits, oil, vegetable cheese, milk source, candy and various other products. Some of the best varieties of soybean oilseed are developed by NARC, Islamabad Pakistan which are Malakand-96, Kharif-93, FS-85, Swat-84 NARC-2, NARC-1 and Ajmeri. Soybean is one of the most important protein as well as oil seed crop. It supplies approximately 65 percent world protein meal and 20 percent of the world edible oil. It is reported that more than 400 different products are prepared from it. Soybean seed contain about 37-42 percent good quality protein, 6 percent ash, 29 percent carbohydrate and 17-24 percent oil comprising 85 percent poly-un saturated fatty acid with two essential fatty acids (Linoleic and linolenic acid), not synthesized by the human body.
Soybean crop is mainly produced annually.
Soybean is a legume of an exceptionally high protein content ranging between 38 and 42%, with lysine constituting a substantial proportion. Soybean as a plant protein is cheaper and could serve as an alternative to cow milk. It contain up to 40% protein compared with 1.0 to 5.6% protein content of most animal milk (Farinde et al., 2008). Soymilk is produced in different ways (Lawson, 2004).
Soybean has a particular beany flavor which is not like by most consumers. To overcome this, the milk was sweetened with sugar and flavored with fruit flavors. It is hope that this project will help in overcoming the deficiencies of milk and will also help the people interested in preparation of milk beverages.
Milk is a very important source of proteins, vitamins and minerals, hence the overall public is sometimes conscious of the importance of milk and milk product, per capita milk intake in African country of 40 litters/annum is low. This is a result of low milk production, rife animal diseases, unaffordability by majority of low financial gain households along with inaccessibility. Several components of African country cannot support farm animal keeping. The literature data mainly concerns cow milk, which represents 85% of the milk consumed in the world and, to a lesser extent, goat
and sheep milk. Studies on other dairy animals (buffalo, yak, mare, and camel) are rather scarce, in spite of their nutritional interest (Sakandar, 2014).
Soy milk (plain/flavored) is prepared to drink and applicable to all or any sections of individuals littered with lactase deficiency (Infants/youth/old/pregnant etc). The milk might accommodate pure water, soybean extract, sugar and salt. It is composed of 3-4% macromolecule, 1.5-2.0% fat and 8- 10% carbohydrates. Seasoned milk might accommodate pure water, soybean extract, sugar, salt, flavors and permissible food colors. Plain soy milk is packed in 200/500 cubic centimeter polyethylene bags/ glass bottles/ characin packs. The soy milk has period of six months once packed in characin packs instead for few weeks underneath cold conditions.
Although soymilk and soy foods are nutritious and their consumption has many health benefits, soy milk has some limitations such as beany flavor, possible allergic reactions and undesirable microbial fermentation after intake by some consumers. Consequently, scientists have tried to resolve these problems by creating some new lines of soybeans, for instance, low and ultra-low raffinose family of oligosaccharides soybeans, lipoxygenase free soybeans, high oleic acid soybeans, low P34 allergen soybeans, and high sucrose soybeans. It would be of great interest to know if soy milks made from these new lines of soybeans could address these problems. This has not been reported in the literature. This study was designed with the objectives as below Extraction of soya milk from different varieties of soya beans.
Comparison of different varieties of soya beans, their nutritional value, characteristics, sensory evaluation etc.
The better selected variety of soya beans is compared with the buffalo milk, its nutritional values, taste and other parameters.
Perform sensory evaluation and proximate analysis (protein, fat, carbohydrates, fatty acids profile, minerals etc.) of soya milk and buffalo milk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Soy Milk Samples Preparation: Initially six soybean varieties were purchased from local market and kept at ambient temperature prior to usage. They were analyzed within a day of purchase. Morphological characteristics such as color of the seed, shape of seed, color and the diameter of seed were determined for each variety.
Thereafter, soy beans were soaked in tap water at ambient temperature (25°C) for 16 hours. Then, they were de-hulled and dried in drier at 50°C for 3 hours prior to production of soy milk.
Production of soymilk: Soymilk was prepared using two methods modified from Illinois method. Soybean seeds were soaked in water for 6-8 h, cleaned by using clean water and ground with 15 liters water in cooker cum grinder. The slurry was cooked at 100oC temperature by passing steam through it. After cooking again slurry was ground in order
to obtain homogeneity and was allowed to pass into deodorizer by opening the butterfly valve and creating vacuum simultaneously. During the flow of soymilk into the deodorizer there was continuous removal of its beany flavor carried out by using vacuum pump. The whole soymilk inside the deodorizer was collected in filter press covered by muslin cloth. After filtration soymilk samples were collected. Soymilk was again boiled up to 80°C by adding sugar with continuous stirring and allowed to cool. It was then filled in sterilized glass bottles having capacity of 200 ml. Bottles were corked firmly and finally sterilized in autoclave steam sterilizer at 121°C for 15 min. The soy milk samples were stored at ambient temperature (27 ± 20°C) for 1 day and refrigerated temperature (4 ± 2°C) for 4 days.
Proximate analysis of soymilk and buffalo milk : Soymilk and buffalo milk was analyzed for moisture, protein, fat, ash, acidity, mineral analysis, free fatty acid profile, milk yield and total solids according to their respective methods described in AOAC (2006).
Sensory analysis: Samples were subjected to sensory analysis by ten panelists comprised of faculty members from National Institute of Food Science and Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Milk samples were evaluated for color, texture, flavor, juiciness and overall acceptability on 9-point hedonic scale by following the method as described by Stone et al. (2012). For these evaluations, a special testing area was used so that distractions can be minimized and conditions can be controlled. The testing room was quiet, comfortable with uniform level of lighting and good ventilation. Each panelist was provided with water for rinsing. All these conditions were equalized for all tests. The samples were given codes before being tested.
Statistical Analysis: The data obtained was subjected to statistical analysis by applying the Two-Factor Factorial under Completely Randomized Design (CRD) to determine the level of significance using Statistix version 8.1. as described by Montgomery (2008).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Proximate Analysis: The pH of variety V4 (William 82) showed the minimum value (4.0) while the V6 (Line 2 (PSC-60) exhibited maximum value. Lowest pH value represented the William 82 as best variety. pH of the milk which is closely related to the acidity of the milk is of cue importance in the dairy industry. pH of the milk determine the storage stability of milk. Milk contains a hydrogen ion concentration of around 6.5 to 6.7 that makes it slightly acidic.
Maximum protein (4.81%) contents were determined in variety William 82 and minimum protein contents (3.78%) were found in variety NARC 2 as shown in Table 1. Milk contains dozens of different varieties of proteins beside the caseins as well as enzymes. These different proteins are
more soluble than the caseins and don't have larger structures and as a result of the proteins stay suspended within the whey left behind once the caseins coagulate into curds, they are together called whey proteins. Whey super molecules frame close to two hundredth of the protein in milk, by weight. Lacto globulin is that the commonest whey super molecule by an outsized margin.
Ash content of a foodstuff represents inorganic residue remaining when destruction of organic matter. According to the values William 82 represented outclass results as compared to others. Highest ash contents (0.40%) were found in V4 (William 82) while lowest ash contents (0.29
%) were found in V6 (Line 2 (PSC-60) as shown in Table 1.
The milk yield (%) of variety V4 (William 82) showed the minimum value (93 %) while the V6 (Line 2 (PSC-60) exhibited maximum value (73%). Highest milk yield (%) represented the William 82 as best variety as shown in Table 1.
Minimum fat (2.67%) contents were determined in variety Rawal 1variety (V1) and maximum fat contents (3.40%) were found in variety William 82 as shown in Table 1.
Highest moisture contents (99.67%) were found in V4
(William 82) while lowest ash contents (89.47%) were found in V1 (Rawal). Wet content affects the physical, chemical aspects of food that relates with the freshness and stability for the storage of the milk for an extended amount of your time and also the wet content verify the particular quality of the milk before consumption by the milk producers.
Carbohydrates area unit one among the fundamental food teams. This class of foods includes sugars, starches, and fiber. The first function of carbohydrates is to produce energy for the body, particularly the brain and therefore the system. The carbohydrates (%) of variety V4 (William 82) showed the minimum value (6.99%) while the V5 (Line 1 (SA-7260) exhibited maximum value (5.69%). Highest milk yield (%) represented the William 82 as best variety.
Minimum acidity (0.24%) contents were determined in variety William 82 (V4) and maximum acidity contents (0.45%) were found in variety V3 (Ajmeri).
Sensory analysis of soybean varieties: Highest colour hedonic score (8) obtained in V4 (William 82) while lowest colour hedonic score (5) were found in V1 (Rawal 1). Beany taste and color undoubtedly are the principal reasons for the declining of soymilk scores. The taste hedonic score of variety V4 (William 82) showed the maximum value (8) while the V3 (Ajmeri) V5 (Line 1 (SA-7260) exhibited maximum value (6). Highest taste hedonic score represented the William 82 as best variety. Minimum texture hedonic score (6) were determined in variety Rawal 1 (V1) and V5
Line 1 (PSC-60) and maximum texture hedonic score (9) were found in variety William 82. Highest odour hedonic score (7) obtained in V4 (William 82) while lowest colour hedonic score (5) were found in V1 (Rawal 1) and V1 (Line 2 (PSC-60) (Table 2). According to the values V4 (William 82) represented best results as compared to others. Data represented in table (2) showed the overall acceptability
hedonic score of six varieties (Raval 1, NARC 2, Ajmeri, William 82, Line 1 (SA-7260) and Line 2 (PSC-60) of soybean. The overall acceptability hedonic score of variety V4 (William 82) showed the maximum value (9) while the V1 (Rawal 1), V5 (Line 1 (SA-7260) and V6 (Line 2 (PSC- 60) exhibited maximum value (6). Highest taste hedonic score represented the William 82 as best variety. Other varieties like NARC 2 and Ajmeri showed taste hedonic score as 7.
Comparison of soy milk and buffalo milk proximate analysis: Water is that the medium within which all alternative elements of milk area unit dissolved or suspended. Water content varies from eighty three.18 to 87.3% in milk of various species. A little proportion of water in milk is hydrous to disaccharide and salts, whereas some portion is sure with proteins (Aneja et al., 2002).
Moisture contents (%) of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in Table 3 as the mean values are 99.65
% and 80.65% of soy milk and buffalo milk respectively.
Treatments showed non-significant difference and storage intervals revealed highly significant difference at 5 % significant differences (Table 3). Data represented in showed non-significant difference in varieties (soy milk and buffalo milk) while the significant difference in storage days. Higher value (6.28%) of carbohydrate found in treatment T1 (soy milk) while T2 (Buffalo milk) exhibited lower carbohydrate value (5.26%) (Table 3). Carbohydrates (%) increased from 0 day to 4th day. Treatment T1 increased from 6.28 to 6.30% as change occurred only 0.2%. T2
increased from 5.26 to 5.31% as change occurred as 0.5 %.
Mean values were 6.28 and 5.08% of T1 and T2 respectively.
Proximate analysis of the “milk” from each variety of soybeans shows that Carbohydrate of 0.17 this agrees with the findings of Nelson et al. (1978). Odu et al. (2012) revealed that total carbohydrates of soymilk ranged from 1.99 to 2.69%.
Mean fat contents for T1 (Soy milk) was 2.96% and for T2
(Buffalo milk) was 6.36 % (Table. 4.4b). Fat contents decreased from 0 day to 4th day interval as treatment T1 (Soy milk) and T2 (Buffalo milk) decreased from 3.23 to 2.90%
and 6.40 to 66.30% respectively.
Soymilk is an alternate of dairy animal milk due to its cheaper high-quality protein (Awonorin and Udeozor, 2014). Protein contents (%) of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in Table 4.5b Protein contents was decreased during storage days for both of treatments.
Treatment T1 decreased from 4.81 % to 4.77 % in 0 day to 4th day while treatment T2 changed as 5.11 to 3.69%. The difference in T1 and T2 exhibited as 0.4 and 1.42%
respectively as shown in Table 3. Treatments and storage intervals revealed non-significant difference at 5%
significant differences. Proximate analysis of the “milk”
from every sort of soybeans shows that macromolecule of one.77, Ash content of 0.21 and sugar of 0.17 this agrees with the findings of Viscount Nelson et al. (1978) with the exception of macromolecule content that is lower in their own report.
Table 1. Comparison (proximate analysis) of soymilk of soybean varieties
Treatments Fat (%) Moisture (%) Carbohydrates (%) Acidity (%)
V1 (Rawal 1) 2.67 89.47 5.99 0.33
V2 (NARC 2) 2.77 99.63 5.87 0.34
V3 (Ajmeri) 2.78 96.63 6.70 0.45
V4 (William 82) 3.40 99.67 6.99 0.24 V5 Line 1 (SA-7260) 2.80 97.70 5.69 0.39 V6 Line 2 (PSC-60) 2.88 98.71 5.90 0.37
Table 2. Comparison of sensory analysis of soymilk of soybean varieties
Treatments Colour Taste Texture Odour Over all acceptability
V1 (Rawal 1) 5 7 6 5 6
V2 (NARC 2) 6 7 8 6 7
V3 (Ajmeri) 6 6 8 6 7
V4 (William 82) 8 8 9 7 9
V5 Line 1 (SA-7260) 7 6 6 6 6
V6 Line 2 (PSC-60) 6 7 7 5 6
Table 3. Proximate analysis of soymilk and buffalo milk Treatments Fat
(%)
Moisture (%)
Carbohydrate (%)
Acidity (%)
Protein
(%) pH Ash
(%)
Lactose (%)
Milk yield (%) T1 (Soy milk) 2.96* 99.65* 6.28* 0.43NS 4.79NS 3.77* 0.39* 0.00* 93NS T2 (Buffalo milk) 6.36* 80.65* 5.08* 0.44NS 4.33NS 6.02* 0.79* 5.6* 94NS
Table 4. Sensory analysis of soymilk and buffalo milk
Treatments Colour Taste Texture Odour Overall acceptability
T1 (Soy milk) 7.4* 6.6NS 7.2NS 6.6NS 6.5NS T2 (Buffalo milk) 6.3* 7.0NS 6.7NS 7.2NS 6.7NS
Table 5. Comparison of mineral composition of soymilk and buffalo milk
Treatments Calcium
(%)
Magnesium (%)
Potassium (%)
Sodium (%)
Iron (mg/L)
Energy (kcal)
T1 (Soy milk) 3 7 3 3 0.64 54
T2 (Buffalo milk) 11 3 3 3 0.49 60
Titratable acidity of milk has long been recognized associated used as an indicator of quality (Griffiths et al., 1988). it's expressed in terms of share carboxylic acid since carboxylic acid is that the principal acid created by fermentation when milk is drawn from the mammary gland.
Data represented in Table 3 showed non-significant difference in treatments (soy milk and buffalo milk) while the highly significant difference in storage days. Higher value (0.24%) of carbohydrate found in treatment T1 (soy milk) while T2 (Buffalo milk) exhibited lower carbohydrate value (0.23%).
Statistical analysis at 5% significant level of pH of soy milk and buffalo milk exhibited highly significant difference for treatments and non-significant difference for storage intervals (Table 4.7a). Mean pH for T1 (Soy milk) was 3.77 and for T2 (Buffalo milk) was 6.02 (Table 3). pH decreased from 0 day to 4th day interval as treatment T1 (Soy milk) and T2 (Buffalo milk) decreased from 4 3.50 and 7.80% to 5.20
% respectively. Change in T1 was 0.5 and 2.6 in T2 (Fig.
4.2). Awonorin and Udeozor, (2014) revealed that the pH value for soymilk samples ranged from 4.562 to 4.953%.
Ash contents (%) of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in Table 4.8b as the mean values are 0.39 % and 0.79 % of soy milk and buffalo milk respectively. Ash contents were decreased during storage days for both of treatments. Treatment T1 decreased from 0.40 to 0.38% in 0
day to 4th day while treatment T2 changed as 0.81 to 0.79%.
The difference in T1 and T2 exhibited as 0.2 and 0.1%
respectively. Treatments and storage intervals revealed non- significant difference at 5 % significant differences.
Mean lactose contents for T1 (Soy milk) was 0 and for T2
(Buffalo milk) was 5.6 % (Table. 4.9b). Lactose contents increased from 0 day to 4th day interval as T2 (Buffalo milk) increased from 5.40 to 6.13%. The difference was 0.73 while soy milk exhibited as 0 % lactose during whole study .Lactose is an attribute of specially related to normal milk (cow and buffalo) that is very hard to digest it. Soymilk is a good milk in this specialty that there was no lactose in soymilk so it is very easy to digest. Soymilk is a healthy drink and is important for people who are allergic to cow milk protein and lactose (Awonorin and Udeozor, 2014).
Milk yield (%) of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in Table 4.10b as the mean values are 93 and 94 % of soy milk and buffalo milk respectively. Milk yield were remained same during storage days for both of treatments T1
and T2. Treatments and storage intervals revealed non- significant difference at 5% significant differences.
Sensory analysis: Higher colour hedonic score (8.00) found in treatment T1 (soy milk) while T2 (Buffalo milk) exhibited lower carbohydrate value (7.00) (Table 2). Colour hedonic score decreased from 0 day to 4th day. Treatment T1
decreased from 8.00 to 6.50 as change occured only 1.5. T2
decreased from 7.00 to 5.50 as change occurred as 1.5 (Table 3). Mean values were 7.4 and 6.3 of T1 and T2
respectively. Statistical analysis at 5% significant level of taste of soy milk and buffalo milk exhibited non-significant difference for treatments and significant difference for storage intervals (Table 4). Mean taste hedonic score for T1
(Soy milk) was 6.6 and for T2 (Buffalo milk) was 7.0 (Table. 4). Taste hedonic score decreased from 0 day to 4th day interval as treatment T1 (Soy milk) and T2 (Buffalo milk) decreased from 7.0 to 6.0 and 8.0 to 6.0 respectively.
The possible reason for least beany taste in soy milk line (KB10-12#1235 sample) might be that this sample was lipoxygenase free. The beany taste components are mainly the oxidation products of unsaturated lipids catalyzed by lipoxygenases (Yuan, 2007). Texture of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in Table 4.13b as the mean values are 7.2 and 6.7 of soy milk and buffalo milk respectively. Hedonic scale of texture were decreased during storage days for both of treatments. Treatment T1
decreased from 8.00 to 6.50 in 0 day to 4th day while treatment T2 changed as 8.00 to 5.50. The difference in T1
and T2 exhibited as 1.5 and 2.5 respectively. Treatments and storage intervals revealed non-significant difference at 5 % significant differences. Highier hedonic score (8.00) of odour found in treatment T2 (Buffalo milk) while T1 (soy milk) exhibited lower odour hedonic score (7.00) (Table 4).
Hedonic score decreased from 0 day to 4th day. Treatment T1 increased from 7.00 to 6.00 as change occurred only 1 hedonic score. T2 decreased from 8.00 to 6.00 as change occurred as 2 hedonic score (Fig. 4.2). Mean values were 6.6 and 7.2 of T1 and T2 respectively. Mean hedonic score of overall acceptability for T1 (Soy milk) was 6.5 and for T2
(Buffalo milk) was 6.7 (Table. 4). Hedonic score of overall acceptability decreased from 0 day to 4th day interval as treatment T1 (Soy milk) and T2 (Buffalo milk) decreased from 7.00 to 6.00 and 8.00 to 6.00 respectively. The overall acceptability of soymilk samples decreased within the entire sample with control sample showing the most change.
Mineral Parameters: Calcium (Ca) contents (%) of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in table 4.16.
The calcium amount present in T1 (soy milk) was 3% and in T2 buffalo 11%. Buffalo revealed good results as compared to soy milk. Data represented in Table 5 showed the magnesium contents (Mg) in soy milk and buffalo milk. Soy milk represented higher amount (7%) of magnesium while buffalo milk showed lower magnesium contents (3%).
Results regarding potassium (K) contents in treatment T1
and T2 represented in table 5. Both treatments represented same results as the value was 3%. Sodium (N) contents (%) of soy milk (T1) and buffalo milk (T2) were exhibited in Table 4.16. The calcium amount present in T1 (soy milk) was 3 % and in T2 buffalo 3%. Buffalo revealed good results as compared to soy milk. Data represented in Table (4.16) showed the iron contents (Fe) in soy milk and buffalo milk. Soy milk represented higher amount (0.64 mg/L) of iron while buffalo milk showed lower magnesium contents (0.49 mg/L). Results regarding energy (E) in treatment T1
and T2 represented in Table 4.16. Treatment T1 soymilk exhibited 54 (kcal) and buffalo milk depicted 60 (kcal) energy.
CONCLUSION
Soybean (Glycine max) is a legume of an exceptionally high protein content ranging between 38% and 42 %, with lysine constituting a substantial proportion. Soybean as a plant protein is cheaper and could serve as an alternative to cow milk. It contain up to 40% protein compared with 1.0% to 5.6% protein content of most animal milk. Soymilk is produced in different ways. The most common method is the Illinois method, which involves grinding of the soybean in hot water to obtain in the milk. Other methods include wet extraction and dry extraction. It has been reported that the shelf life of soymilk is very short. This is as a result of the pH of the milk (7.0-7.5) and the activities of the various microorganisms contained in the milk, which may have been inherently present in the soybean or due to inadequate processing and post-processing contamination. Changes associated with these activities vary but usually include decrease in pH, increase in titratable acidity, almost no change in fat contents etc. was observed. The quest for cheap source of protein has enhanced small scale production of vegetable protein products of which soymilk is an example. Soymilk consumption has encouraged small scale production of the product under household condition with little or no regard to quality control measures. The study was designed to examine the effect of temperature on the shell-life of soymilk stored at 4ºC. It also aimed at developing shelf stable soya milk. This study examined the result of storage temperature on the shell-life of soya milk keep at 40ºC. The use of soybean for the assembly of soy milk was studied. Soy milk was extracted from whole and dehulled seeds. All soy milk samples were analyzed for proximate composition (moisture%, ash %, total solids, fat) and therefore the organoleptic tests (color, appearance, texture, taste, flavor and overall acceptability) of the soy milk samples were evaluated to work out the shelf-stability of the merchandise throughout refrigeration and temperature storage.
REFERENCES
Adetunji, O.A., E. Betiku, A. Ojo and B.O. Solomon. 2006.
Effect of some processing routes on the nutritional value of soy yoghurt. J. appl. Sci.. 6: 527-530.
AOAC. 2006. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC, International. Association of Analytical Chemists international, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
AOAC. 2006. Official Methods of Analysis. The Association of Official Analytical Chemist. 18th Ed.
Arlington, USA
Awonorin, S.O. and L.O. Udeozor. 2014. Chemical Properties of Tiger nut-Soy Milk Extract. J. Environ.
Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 8: 87-98.
Farinde, E.O., A.V. Obatolu, B.S. Fasoyiro, H.A. Adeniran and E.A. Agboola. 2008. Use of Alternative raw materials for yoghurt production. Afri. J. Biotechnol. 7 (33): 3339- 3345.
Lawson, A.B. 2004. Assessment of shelf life of African yam bean milk and soybean at ambient and refrigeration temperature. B.Sc, Research project, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Montgomery, D.C. 2008. Design and Analysis of Experiments. 7th Ed. John Wiley and Sons. Inc.
Hoboken, NJ, USA. 162-264.
Nelson, A.I., D.M. Steinber and S.L. Wei. 1976. Illinois process for preparation of soymilk. J. Food Sci. 41: 57-61.
Nelson, A.I., M.P. Steinberg and L.S. Wei. 1978. Illinois Processor for preparation of Soy milk. J. Food Sci. 2:
45-67.
Odu, N.N., N.N. Egbo and I.O. Okonko. 2012. Assessment of the Effect of Different Preservatives on the Shell- Life of Soymilk Stored at Different Temperatures. Res..
4:62-69.
Sakandar, H.A., S. Ahmad, H.K.W. Aslam and A. Shakeel.
2014. Polymerized whey protein isolates impact on organoleptic properties of camel milk stirred yoghurt. J.
Glob. Innov. Agric. Soc. Sci. 2: 123-126. DOI:
10.17957/JGIASS/2.3.591
Stone, H., R. Bleibaum and H.A. Thomas. 2012. Sensory evaluation practices, Academic press.
Yuan, S.H. and S.K.C. Chang. 2007. Selected odor compounds in soymilk as affected by chemical composition and lipoxygenases in five soybean materials. J. Agr. Food Chem. 55: 426-31.
