See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336579600

Production and Quality evaluation of soy milk yoghurt.

Article · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 2,200

4 authors, including:

Ejinkeonye Uju Fabian Ugwuona

Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike
8 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Elderly care View project

Optimization of nutrients in foods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ejinkeonye Uju on 27 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

PRODUCTION AND QUALITY EVALUATIONOF SOYMILK YOGHURT

Ugwona, F.U, Obeta, N.A, Ejinkeonye, U.B and Aliyu, S.A

1
Department of Food Science & Technology,College of Applied Food Sciences and Tourism, Michael Okpara
University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State.
2
Department of Home Economics, Hospitality Management & Tourism, College of Applied Food Sciences & Tourism,
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State.
3
Department Of Home Science and Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Lafia Campus, Nasarawa
State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria
2
Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Background: Yoghurt is a fermented dairy product basically produced from cow's milk. In Nigeria, cows' milk
is imported and relatively expensive. Soymilk is inexpensive and available and could be alternative to cow's
milk in yoghurt production.
Objective: This study evaluated nutrient composition and sensory characteristics of soymilk yoghurt.
Methods: Soymilk (4.6litres) of 12.5% total solid was produced from 500g of soybean seed using standard
method and divided into 3portions (C1, C2 and C3) of 1000ml each. Liquid cows' milk was made by mixing
125gof full cream powdered milk with1litreof distilled water; and designated B. The C1, C2, C3 and B, were
separately pasteurized (85 OC, 15 mins), homogenized, cooled to 40 – 44OC and inoculated with 0.44% of 50:50%
mixture of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophillus. Sucrose (1.95g), carboxyl methyl cellulose
(CMC) (0.96g) and strawberry (2.5ml) and commercial cow's milk flavour (0.10g) were added tosamplesC1, C2
and C3 while lactose and calcium citrate were added only to C2 and C3 at different concentrations. These were
fermented (7h), cooled (44OC) gradually to set. The yoghurts were analyzed for nutrient composition, microbial
and sensory quality.
Results: Soy milk yoghurt which had no CMC was relatively higher in carbohydrate (50.01%) than others which
had 2.85% to 4.84% carbohydrate. The sensory attributes of the formulated samples were affected by ingredients,
but they compared favourably with the cow's milk yoghurt.
Conclusion: The produced soy milk yoghurts had nutrient and sensory quality characteristics similar to cow's milk
yoghurt and could be substitute cow's milk yoghurt.

Keywords: Production quality evaluation, soy milk yoghurt.

Introduction children in many parts of developing countries (1),

Yoghurt is a fermented dairy product basically including Nigeria. This is because of the high protein
produced from cow's milk. Cow's milk is a high content. Also, soybean has many bioactive
nutrient animal product but relatively expensive. constituents which may help reduce bone loss that
Cow's milk is mostly imported from outside Nigeria typically occur after menopause. A typical example is
and cannot be afforded by many Nigerians. Soymilk soy isoflavone, a phytochemical, which can help
produced from readily available soybean in Nigeria women with low bone mineral content to prevent hip
could serve as an alternative to cow's milk for yoghurt fractures in postmenopausal years (2). The isoflavone
production (4). Soymilk, unlike cows' milk is also reducesabnormal fat development, thereby
produced from soybean, a leguminous seed of plant inhibiting cancer in human. Isoflavones (genistein,
origin. Soy milk yoghurt is good and cheaper daidzein and glycitein) which are anticarcinogenic,
alternative to cow's milk yoghurt if closely mimics the lower blood sugar and cholesterol and prevent
dairy based yoghurt in flavour and consistency to osteoporosis in women undergoing menopause (6).
sustain consumers' taste for the conventional cow's High fibre in powdered soymilk can help reduce
milk yoghurt. Soymilk yoghurt is a healthy fermented incidence of colon cancer among regular consumers.
food which contains more calcium and protein than In areas of the world where soybean is eaten regularly,
soymilk because of the added calcium salts and rates of colon cancer tend to be low. Soybean contains
cultures at production. Soybean and soybean products relatively considerable amounts of glucosylamide,
may be the most practical means of relief from which may be the reason for the cancer preventive
kwashiorkor which is increasing in prevalence among effects of eating soy foods (3). Soybean has

127
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

galactosides such as raffinose and stachyose which are 2. Materials and methods
not digestible by man and could serve as substrate to Processing of soymilk: Soybean seeds (500 g) were
probiotics in rumen (5). Soymilk is relatively low in washed and fermented (16 h) with tap water (2.5
calcium but could be fortified with calcium salts prior litres). The seeds were dehulled manually and rinsed
to yoghurt production. out with clean tap water. The nibs were wet-milled into
Starter cultures for yoghurt production are lactic acid paste using 2.5litres of clean water within 5 minutes in
bacteria (LAB). Foods fermented with LAB are a highspeed attrition mill (Perten 310, Perten
hygienically safe, stable and offer alternative sensory Instruments, Sweden). The slurry was sieved with
properties (7). Lactic acid bacteria are collectively added water through muslin cloth, and the residue
called probiotics because of their role in digestion and squeezed with right palm to get all the milk. The
physiological functioning of the human bowel and are residue was re-mixed water three times the volume of
very important component of yoghurt. Yoghurt is a the milk and then filtered again to recover more
O
highly cherished and consumed by most Nigerians of soymilk. The milk was heated to boil (100 C) for
all ages. This study is set to produce soy-based 20minutes with continuous stirring to minimize
yoghurts with and without calcium fortification; and of coagulation. The sterilized liquid soy milk yielded was
nutritional, sensory and microbiological qualities 4.6 litres and had 12.46% total solid.
comparable to those of cows' milk yoghurt.

Table 1: Ingredients for the experimental yoghurts production

Yoghurt
B C1 C2 C3
Ingredients

Distilled water (ml) 87.50 - - -

Full cream powdered cow’s 12.50 - - -
milk (ml)
16 h fermented soymilk (ml) - 100 0 100 0 100 0

Lactose (g) - - 0.56 2.24

Sucrose (g) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95
Yoghurt culture (g) 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
C arboxyl methyl cellulose 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
(CMC ) (g)
Calcium citrate(g) - - 0.22 0.65
Strawberry flavour (ml) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Commercial cow’s milk flavour (g) 0. 0 0 0.10 0.10 0.10

Source: Ejinkeonye, U (2018)

Yoghurt production: Powdered cow's milk was mixture of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and
reconstituted by mixing 125 g of full cream powdered Streptococcus thermophillus) at 44OC. Other
milk (Peak, WAMCO Co, Holland) in 1litre of distilled ingredients namely 1.95g sucrose, 0.96g carboxyl
water and designated sample B while three portions, methyl cellulose (CMC), 2.5ml strawberry and0.1g
C1, C2 and C3,of 1000ml each, were measured from commercial cow's milk flavour was added to the C1,
the produced soymilk. The liquid cows' milk (B) and C2 and C3 as shown in Table 1. Also 0.56g and 2.24g
the soymilk samples (C1, C2, C3) were separately of lactose, and 0.22g and 0.65g of calcium citrate were,
pasteurized (85OC) for 15 mins, homogenized in respectively added to samplesC2 and C3. The four
Kenwood mixer (UW HM436 oog, Kenwood Co, samples were fermentation in a thermostatic bath at
O O
China) and cooled at 44 C. The samples were 44 Cfor 7h, and then allowed to cool gradually (8).
inoculated with 0.44% yoghurt culture (50%:50% This resulted in four yoghurt samples B, C1, C2 and

128
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

C3 transparent plastic cups.Distilled water was provided

Chemical analysis for the panellists to rinse mouth after each sample. The
Proximate constituents were determined in triplicates panellists were familiar with cow's milk yoghurts and
usingmethods of the Association of Official Analytical were given no time limit for evaluation of the
Chemists (9). experimental yoghurts,but each panellist spent not
more than 10 minsin rating of the samples. The
Microbiological analysis attributes evaluated were colour, texture, flavour,
The yoghurt samples were analysed for total viable mouth-feel and over-all acceptability. For each
count, coli forms and moulds according to procedures sample, panellists scored these characteristics using 9-
outlined in the Compendium of Methods for the point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely, 2 = dislike
Microbiological Examination of Foods (10). Briefly, 5 very much, 3 = dislike moderately, 4 = dislike slightly,
ml of soymilk yoghurt was mixed with 45 ml of 0.1% 5 = neither like nor dislike, 6 = like slightly, 7 = like
-1
peptone water (10 dilution and serially diluted up to moderately, 8 = like very much, 9 = like extremely).
-10
10 with peptone water (0.1 %). These dilutions were Statistical Analysis: Data were analysed using
then used for plating. Statistical Package for Social Sciences software
Total viable count: One millilitre from each dilution (SPSS Software Version 19.0, SPSS Inc., 2001) and
was pour-plated in duplicate on nutrient agar plate and means separated with Turkey's least significant
O
incubated at 37 C for 24 h. differences (LSD). Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Coli form counts: Peptone water (0.1%) containing was used to compare means at p < 0.05 level of
5ml of each yoghurt sample was kept at room significance.
temperature (26±2OC) for 1 h for enumeration.
Diluents were then made using 0.1% peptone water, Results
and 1ml from each diluent was pour plated in Proximate composition
duplicates on to violet red bile agar (Himedia) and the Table 2 shows the proximate composition of the
plates were inoculated at 37OC for 48 h. yoghurt samples. The yoghurt samples had90.61 (B) to
Mould counts: Peptone water (0.1%) containing 5ml 93.90 % liquid (C3). The B yoghurt had higher
of yoghurt was kept at room temperature (26±2OC) for carbohydrate (3.84 %) and protein (3.16 %) contents
48 h for enumeration. Diluents were made using 0.1% than the soy yoghurts (2.85 – 3.75 % carbohydrate and
peptone water, and 1ml from each diluent was pour- 1.24 – 2.55 % protein). However, the soy yoghurts had
plated on Saboround dextrose agar plates, and the higher fat (0.79 % – 2.35%) in C3 and C2, respectively.
plates were incubated at room temperature for 48 h There was no detectable crude fibre in any of the four
after which colonies were counted manually. yoghurt samples. The ash content wassignificantly (p
Sensory evaluation: Sensory evaluation was done on < 0.05) highest (0.67 %) in the B yoghurt followed by
fresh yoghurt samples, using the method of Mellgaard, C2 (0.50 %), C1 (0.48 %) and C3 (0.31 %). Among the
Civille and Cart (11). Fifteen undergraduate panellists soy yoghurts, C2 had the highest amount of
evaluated the sensory attributes of the yoghurt carbohydrate, protein, fat and ash contents while C3
samples. The samples were presented chilled in 25 ml had the least contents of these nutrients except for
plastic bottles with random number, served in carbohydrate content.

Table 2: Proximate composition of yoghurt samples

Constituent (%) (B ) (C1) (C2) (C3)
Cow ’s milk Soy yoghurt Soy yoghurt Soy yoghurt
yoghurt
a c b a
Carbohydrate 3.84 2.85 3.01 3.76
c a b
Moisture 90.61 93.58 91.49 93.90a
a b d
Protein 3.16 2.28 c 2.55 1.24
c b a b
Fat 0.72 0.81 2.35 0.79
a b b c
Ash 0.67 0.48 0.50 0.31
Fibre ND ND ND ND
B = cow's milk yoghurt with no added calcium citrate and lactose (milk sugar), C1 = soy
yoghurt with no added lactose and calcium citrate, C2 = soy yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22
g of calcium citrate, C3 = soy yoghurt with added lactose and 0.65 g of calcium citrate,
ND = not detected. Values along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

129
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

Mineral composition manganese (10.70 – 16.04 g/100 g). However,

Table 3 shows mineral contents of the four these minerals were significantly lower (p < 0.05)
yoghurt samples. Mineral contents of the soy in the plain soymilk yoghurt (C1) than in cow's
milk yoghurts were comparable with those of the milk yoghurt. Phosphorus content was
cow's milk. The yoghurts were high in calcium significantly higher (p <0.05) in the cow's milk
(50.02 – 70.01 g/100 g), phosphorus (39.94 – yoghurt than in any of the soy milk yoghurts. The
50.03 g/100 g), iron (39.71 – 78.51 g/100 g) and C2 and the C3 had significantly higher (p<0.05)
zinc (33.29 – 43.80 g/100 g) but relatively low in contents of these mineral than the cow's milk
yoghurt.

Table 3: Mineral composition (g/100g) of yoghurt samples

Samples Calcium Phosphorus Iron Magnesium Zinc Manganese

c a b c c
B 59.04±0.00 50.03±0.00 41.51±0.003 24.31±0.04 39.52±0.04 11.31±0.03 b
d b b d d
C1 50.02±0.0 41.01±0.00 39.71±0.02 16.51±0.03 33.29±0.03 10.70±0.02b
a b a b a
C2 69.02±0.00 39.94±0.00 76.72±0.03 26.11±0.31 43.80±0.01 15.89±0.003a
a b a a a
C3 70.01±0.00 41.01±0.00 78.51±0.03 36.78±0.02 42.38±0.03 16.04±0.03a
B = cow's milk yoghurt with no added calcium citrate and lactose C1 = soy milk yoghurt with no added lactose and calcium
citrate, C2 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22 g of calcium citrate, C3 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose
and 0.65 g of calcium citrate, ND = not detectedValues along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

Microbial quality
Microbial quality of the yoghurts samples is shown in Table 4. Moulds were not detected in any of the samples
within the three days of storage. Coliforms (CFU/ml) were detected in yoghurt samples C2 at 2.0×10 and C3 at
1.0×10 but not in the samples A and C1. There were viable counts (CFU/ml) in all the samples and this increased in
5 5 5 5
the following order: A (1.43×10 ) > C1 (1.82×10 ) > C2 (2.62×10 ) > C3 (2.91×10 ).

Table 4: Microbiological quality of cow’s milk and soymilk yoghurts after 3days of
O
refrigerated (4 C) storage.
Samples Total viable Count Coli forms Mould
(TVC) (CFU/ml) (CFU/ml) (CFU/ml)

B 1.43×10 5 0.0×10 0.0×10

C1 1.82×10 5 0.0×10 0.0×10

5
C2 2.62×10 2.0×10 1.0×10
5
C3 2.91×10 1.0×10 0.0×10

B = cow's milk yoghurt with no added calcium phosphate and lactose, C1 = soy milk yoghurt
with no added lactose and calcium citrate, C2 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22 g
of calcium citrate, C3 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.65 g of calcium citrate,
ND = not detected. Values along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

130
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

Sensory analysis
Sensory evaluation scores for colour, flavour, texture, mouth feel and overall acceptability of all the yoghurts
by the panellists ranged from 6.27 to 8.07, all above the mean score of 5 for the 9-points hedonic scale used.
Thus, all the four yoghurt samples were acceptable to the consumers. Yoghurt sample C3 was significantly
(p< 0.05) preferred to samples B, C1 and C2 in terms of flavour, texture, mouth feel and overall acceptability
(Table 5). However, colour of the cow's milk yoghurt was preferred to every other sample.

Table 5: Sensory properties of the produced yoghurts

Samples Colour Texture Flavour Mouth feel Overall acceptability

B 8 .07? 6 .80 ?
6 .53? 6 .87? 6 .93 ?
?
C1 7 .00? 7 .70 6 .27? 6 .80? 6 .60 ?
C2 6 .73? 6 .70 ?
7 .27? 6 .60? 6 .87 ?
?
C3 7 13? 7 .20 7 .87? 8 .27? 7 .67 ?

B = cows' milk yoghurt with no added calcium citrate and lactose (milk sugar), C1 = soy milk yoghurt with no added lactose and
calcium citrate, C2 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22 g of calcium citrate, C3 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose
and 0.65 g of calcium citrate, ND = not detected. Values along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

Discussion antioxidants, and are also known to prevent many

The soymilk yoghurts were higher in fat content than degenerative diseases, including cardiomyopathy,
the cow's milk yoghurt. High fat content of the soy muscle degeneration, growth retardation, alopecia,
milk yoghurts is possible from the usual high fat dermatitis, immunologic dysfunction, gonadial
content in soybeans and suggested availability of fat- atrophy and bleeding disorder (17).
soluble vitamins in the yoghurts. Also, soy fat is plant
fat, and composed mainly of unsaturated fats which Calcium is an essential micronutrient, obligatory for
are of high health benefit to human. Cow milk fat is acquiring optimum bone mass. High amount of
animal fat, which on the other hand is composed soluble calcium in the food aids total calcium
mainly of saturated fats which are likely to predispose absorption (18,19) by facilitating ionisation of calcium
consumers to heart-related diseases (13). High ash in the digestive system. Manufacturers often fortify
content implied high minerals in the samples. Higher soymilk with similar levels of calcium as in cows' milk
protein and minerals in the cow's yoghurt suggessed to (approximately 120 mg/ 100 ml) by adding calcium
higher quality than the soy milk yoghurts. Addition of phosphate, calcium citrate, calcium carbonate or
lactose to soymilk for production of soy milk yoghurt calcium chloride (20).
improved nutrient of the substrate for high viable,
probiotics counts, and quality of the final product as The microbial counts indicated that soy milk yoghurts
evident in qualities of C1 [Table 2]. It improved the were higher in total coliform and viable counts than the
sensory properties of the soy milk yoghurt samples. cow's milk yoghurt. Higher coliform and viable counts
in soy milk yoghurts than in cows' milk yoghurt might
Cow's milk and its fermented products are naturally not necessarily imply unsafe. Application of dairy
high in calcium and most minerals while plain soymilk standards to soy products may not be appropriate
and soy milk yoghurt are comparatively low in these because vegetable foods can be safe with bacterial
minerals (14). However, the reverse was the case with loads that might be considered too high in foods of
the soymilk yoghurts fortified with calcium citrate. animal origin, due to the differences in types of
The improved mineral contents, particularly calcium bacteria likely to be encountered in these two sources
in C2 and C3 was due to the added calcium citrate. (21). Lactic acid bacterial fermentation has been
Calcium certified food additives are generally known to improve nutritional quality, lowers
regarded as safe (15). Minerals play important cholesterol (22) and carcinogen levels of soymilk (23),
metabolic and physiologic roles in living cells (16). and improves immune status of consumers (24).
Iron, zinc and manganese work in synergy with Calcium-fortified soy milk yoghurt could serve as a
selenium to strengthen immune system as close substitute for cow's milk yoghurt to serve the

131
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

teeming consumers in Nigeria. 457-61.

7. Salminen, S., Deighton, M.A., Benno, Y. and
Conclusion Gorbach, S.L. (1998). Lactic acid bacteria in
Fortification of soy milk with calcium phosphate and health and disease. In, Lactic acid bacteria:
other ingredients improved mineral contents of soy Microbiology and functional aspects.
milk yoghurt. The soy yoghurts compared favourably Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA,
with cow's milk yoghurt in nutrient and sensory 211-254p.
characteristics. There were no moulds, low coliforms 8. Richard, L. (2001). Fermented milk, in: L.
but high total viable counts in the soy milk yoghurts, Richard (Ed.), Microbiology Handbook: Dairy
nd
suggesting high presence of probiotic bacteria and of Products, 2 edition. Leatherhead Food Research
health promoting qualityof the yoghurts. Nigerian Association Publishing, Leatherhead, 85-96p.
women, particularly rural mothers should be 9. A.O.A.C. (2006). American Cancer Society.
encouraged to process and use soy foods, including Cancer Facts and Figures. American Cancer
milk and yoghurt. Farmers should be encouraged and Society. Atlanta, GA.
assisted by Nigerian government and non- 10. Downes, F.P. and Ito, K. (2001). Compendium of
governmental organisations (NGO's) to sustain Methods for the Microbiological
commercial production of soybean. Examination of Foods. Forth edition
Washington D.C.:American Public Health
REFERENCES Association.
1. Grewal, R.B (2000). Utilization and Processing of 11. Mellgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., and Cart, E.T.
th
Soybean to Prepare Traditional Foods of (1999). Sensory Evaluation Techniques 4 edition,
India. The third International Soybeans CRC press, Baco Raton.
Processing and Utilization Conference 12. SPSS (2001).SPSS Software Ver. 19.0, SPSS
(ISPUC-111) 2000 of the innovative Era for Inc.,Microsoft Windows, 2001, London.
soybeans, October 15-20, 2000, Tsukuba, 13. Singh, S.R., Rachie, K.O. and Dashiell, K.E.
Ibaraki, Japan, Pp 325-326. (2000). Soybean for the tropics: research,
2. Chen, Y.M.C., Hoss, L. Ho, S.S., and woo, J.L. production and utilization. John Wiley and sons
(2003). Soy Isoflavones have a Favourable effect Ltd. 1-5p, 167-170p.
on bone loss in Chinese post-menopausal Women 14. Tang, A. I., Shang, N. P., Wilcox, G., Walker, K.
with lower bone mass; a double blind, randomized Z. and Stojanovska, L. (2007).
controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology Fermentation of calcium-fortified soymilk with
and Metabolism, 88: 4740-4747. Lactobacillus: effect on calcium solubility,
3. Symolon, H.E.M., Schmiz D.L. Dillehay, A.H., and isoflavone conversion and production of organic
Merrill, J.R. (2004). Dietary soy sphingolipids acids. Journal of Food Science, 72, 9: m431-
suppress tumorigenesis and gene expression in m436.
1,2-dimethylylydrazine-treatedd CFI Mice and 15. Mahindru, , S .N. (2008). Food Additives:
ApcMin/+Mice. Journal of Nutrition, 134: 1157- Characteristics, Detection and Estimation.
1161. A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, 4435-36/7,
4. Favaro Trindade, C.S., Terzi, S.C., Trugo, L.C., Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi,
Della Modesta, R.C., and Couri, S. (2001). India, 339p.
Development and evaluation of soy milk-based 16.Enechi, O.C., and Odonwodo, I. (2003).
yoghurt. Archivoslatino Americanos d e Assessment of the phytochemical and nutrient
Nutricion, 51(1): 100-104. composition of pulverized roots of Cissus
5. Kailasaphathy, K. and Rybka, S.L. (1997). qudragularis. Journal of Biological Research and
Acidophilus and B. Bifidobacterium spp.- their Biotechnology, 1: 63-68.
therapeutic potential and survival i. Yogurt. The 17. Chaturvedi, V.C., Shrivastava, R. and Upreti,
Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 52: 28- R.K. (2004). Viral infections and trace
35. elements: A complex interaction. Current
6. Fukutake, M., Takabashi, M., Ishida, K., Science, 87: 1536-1554.
Kawamura, H., Sugimura, T., and 18. Schrroder, B.G., Griffin, H., Specker, B.I. and
Wakabayashim, K. (1996). Quantification of Adrams, S.A. (2005). Absorption of c a l c i u m
genistein and genistin in soybeans and soybean from the carbonated dairy soft drinks is greater
products. Food Chemistry and Toxicology, 35: than that from fat-free milk a n d c a l c i u m -

132
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

fortified orange juice in women. Nutrition 22. Liong, M.T. and Shah, N.P. (2005). Bile salt
Research, 25: 737-43. decomposition and BSH activity of five
19. Theobald, H.E. (2005). Dietary calcium and bifidobacoterial strains and their co-precipitating
health. Nutrition Bulletin, 30: 237-77. properties. Food Research International, 38: 135-
20. Heaney, R.P., Rafferty, K. and Bierman, J. (2005). 139.
Not all calcium-fortified beverages are 23. Commane, D., Hughes, R., Shortt, C., and
equal. Nutrition Today, 40(1): 39-44. Rowland, I. (2005). The potential mechanisms
21. Ambarasu, K. and Vijayalakshmi, G. (2007). involved in the anticarcinogenic action of
Improved shelf life of protein-rich tofu probiotics. Mutation Research, 591: 276-289.
using Ocimum sanctum (tulsi) extracts to benefit 24. Reid, G. (2006). Safe and efficacious probiotics:
Indian rural population. Journal of Food what are they? Trends in Microbiology,
Science, 72(8): M300-M304. 14(1): 348-52.

133

View publication stats