World Journal of Dairy & Food Sciences 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

ISSN 1817-308X
© IDOSI Publications, 2015
DOI: 10.5829/[Link].2015.10.2.94216

Production and Evaluation of Yoghurt from Mixtures of

Cow Milk, Milk Extract from Soybean and Tiger Nut
1
Charles Bristone, 1Mamudu H. Badau, 2Joseph U. Igwebuike and 1Amin O. Igwegbe

1
Department of Food Science & Technology, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Maiduguri, P. M. B. 1069, Maiduguri, Nigeria
2
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Maiduguri, P.M.B. 1069, Maiduguri, Nigeria

Abstract: The proportions of cow milk, milk extracts from soybean and tiger nut were varied resulting in
producing eight formulations. Yoghourt was produced from eight formulations and their physicochemical
properties, sensory evaluation and microbial counts were determined. The fat, protein, ash and carbohydrate
contents of yoghourt ranged from 1.15 – 3.26%, 2. 14 – 3.56%, 0.22 – 0.68% and 3.77 – 9.27%, respectively.
Cow – Soy (50:50) yoghourt had the highest (P<0.05) fat content, whereas the highest (P<0.05) protein content
were recorded by Cow – Soy (50:50), Cow milk (100%) and Cow – Soy (20:80) yoghourts. Consistency of cow
milk (100%) yoghourt was most preferred (P<0.05). Flavour of Cow – soy (50:50), cow milk (100%) and
cow – tiger (50:50) yoghourts were Preferred (P<0.05). Colour and texture of cow – soy (50:50) and cow milk
(100%) yoghourts were significantly preferred (P<0.05). Generally, yoghourts from cow milk (100%) and
cow – soy (50:50) were most accepted (P<0.05). Total bacterial plate count of yoghurt formulations ranged from
1.3×105 - 10.5×105 CFU/ml and mould plate count from 2.4×10 5 - 8.7×105 CFU/ml. pH of yoghurt formulations
ranged from 3.97 - 4.75, whereas titratable acidity ranged from 0.09 - 1.13%. Therefore, yoghourt can be
produced by partial substitution of cow milk with either soymilk or tiger nut.

Key words: Imitation milk Starter culture Sensory attributes Titratable acidity Flour

INTRODUCTION resulting in increase in the cost of production which could

affect the profit margin. Most of the animal milk used by
Yoghurt is a fermented milk product that evolved our industry in Nigeria is dry skim milk which is mostly
empirically some centuries ago by allowing naturally imported which drains our foreign exchange earnings.
contaminated milk to sour at a warm temperature, probably Alternatives for cow milk were explored by most
in the temperature range of 40-50°C [1]. It is usually industry to produce cheap and available milk and milk like
produced from whole or partially skimmed cow’s or products to the teeming population. The use of extracted
buffalo’s milk [2]. There have been a lot of improvements milk from plant sources (imitation milk) to produce
in the industry where starter cultures are used to ferment yoghourt as an alternative to animal milk with certain
the milk for a specific period and desired flavours are quality attribute (taste, flavour, texture, shelf life stability),
achieved. As population keep on growing in Nigeria and health benefit and variety in diet have been investigated
there is migration of people from rural to urban cities, [3, 4]. Recent studies have been carried out in an effort to
there is high demand of milk which the indigenous breed improve the nutritional quality and need of consumers. In
could not meet the demand of the teaming population. such case, protein from other rich plant sources is used to
There is no adequate improved breed that could burst milk improve other deficient diets for nutritional and economic
production; as such this increases the unit price of milk reasons.

Corresponding Author: Mamudu H. Badau, Department of Food Science & Technology,

Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, P.M.B. 1069, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
E-mail: mamudu_badau@[Link], mamudubadau@[Link].
159
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

Several researches have attempted to produce isolated from tiger nut extract consumed by students of
imitation milk from legumes and other plant sources. Kaduna state University, Kaduna-Nigeria [16].
Akoma et al. [5] produced yoghourt from coconut and As can be seen, blends of milk extract from tiger nut
tiger nuts which improved the protein value. Proximate and those of other plant sources for yoghourt production
and amino acid composition of extracts of two varieties of have been investigated extensively. Similar studies in
tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus) have been studied [6]. substituting animal milk with other food grade materials
Natural tiger nut milk, pasteurized tiger nut milk, fermented have been carried out in Egypt by Awad et al. [17] and
tiger nut milk, sterilized tiger nut milk, ultra-high Ismael et al. [18]. Yoghourt has been produced from
temperature tiger nut milk and concentrated and coconut and tiger nuts by Akoma et al. [5]. In other
condensed milk was produced by Ukwuru and Ogbodo studies, Udeze et al. [19] and Adedokun et al. [20]
[7]. Fermentation increased the protein content of the examined the mineral composition, proximate composition,
product. Similarly, Nwobosi et al. [8] studied the influence fibre qualities and consumer acceptability of
of pasteurization and use of natural tropical preservatives bambara–tiger nut–coconut beverage blends, Udeozor
on the quality attributes of tiger nut drink during storage and Awonorin [21] made comparative microbial analysis
and the study revealed that preserved tiger nut extract is and storage of tiger nut–soy milk and Wakil et al. [22]
rich in nutrient and can be produced in a moderate cheap determined the microbiological and nutritional assessment
means which can be sold at a considerate rate and give of starter-developed fermented tiger nut milk. The results
better option to soft drink. Ukwuru et al. [9] developed obtained in these studies were awesome in terms of
new product from tiger nut and had good proximate economical, nutritional and health benefits.
composition values and microbiologically wholesome. Yoghourt from imitation milk extracted from
Sterilized whole tiger nut milk and other high temperature soybeans, tiger nut and milk extract from other plant
processed tiger nut milk did not show microbial growth sources recorded only few successes. Even when a good
during storage. Composition, products, uses, economics imitation milk is produced from these sources, it has never
and nutritional/health benefits of tiger nut and its yielded desired good quality yoghurts and even if a good
derivatives have been reviewed by Bamishaiye and one is produced, it has to carry a lot of food additives
Bamishaiue [4], Chima et al. [10] and Gambo and Da’u such as preservatives, flavours, colours and thickeners
[11]. Adgidzi et al. [12] studied the effects of hot water [23- 26] and never same as yoghourt from cow’s milk. The
and steam blanching on the quality of aqueous extract need to add cow’s milk to imitation milk to incorporate the
from tiger nuts (Cyperus esculentus). flavour characteristics of yoghourt from cow’s milk
Other studies in recent times indicated that milk cannot be over emphasized. Amanze and Amanze [27]
prepared from tiger nut and soybean could be used as a reported the production of yoghourt from mixtures of cow
beverage for both the young and old persons due to the milk and soymilk but that from mixture of cow milk and
high nutrient contents [13]. Researchers in Cameroon milk extract from tiger nut is under reported in this
determined the influence of soaking on biochemical environment. Therefore, there is the need to produce
components of tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus) tubers. The yoghourt from milk extracts of tiger nuts and soybeans
study revealed some information that could benefit public and compared with that of cow milk. The objectives of this
health officials in sub-Saharan Africa in advising local study were to produce yoghurt from mixtures of cow’s
populations about influence of treatment on the nutrient milk; milk extracts from soybeans and tiger nut and
value of various spontaneous edible plants that grow in determine their physicochemical properties, sensory
the region [14]. In other studies, Imam et al. [15] and attributes and microbiological load.
Musa and Hamza [16] did preliminary phytochemical
screening; elemental and proximate composition of two MATERIALS AND METHODS
varies of Cyperus esculentus (tiger nut) and reported that
the plant has high fibre content. Therefore, the Sources of Materials: Soybeans (yar-Jalingo) was
consumption of significant quantities of Cyperus procured from Maiduguri Monday market, Borno state,
esculentus would not constitute a risk factor to some Nigeria, while tiger nut (yar-Girei) and fresh cow milk and
pathogenic stages that is diabetic mellitus, obesity and ‘kindirmo’ starter culture, an indigenous yoghourt
coronary heart disease. Notwithstanding, good hygiene composed of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and
practice need to be adopted during preparation since Streptococcus thermophilus [28] were procured from
Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus have been Girei, Girei Local Government Area of Nigeria.

160
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

Wet Extraction of Milk from Soybeans: Whole soybeans

(1 kg) was first sorted and washed to remove contaminant.
It was soaked inside clean water for 12 hours and was
then dehulled in-between two palms (rubbed abrasively
between two palms). This was further washed and drained
repeatedly until the seed coats were removed. The wet
soybean bran was then wet milled with Premier A-1 disc
mill (Yamaha Motor Company Ltd, Iwata, Japan), mixed in
a ratio of 1:3 volume of clean water and was strained
through muslin cloth to obtain the soymilk (Figure 1).

Wet Extraction of Milk from Tiger nuts: Similarly, 1 kg of

whole Tiger nuts was sorted and washed to remove
contaminants. It was soaked in clean water for 24 hours.
The wet tiger nuts were drained, washed again, wet milled
with Premier A-1 disc mill (Yamaha Motor Company Ltd,
Iwata, Japan) and mixed in ratio 1:3 volume of water. This
was then strained through muslin cloth to obtain the tiger
nut milk (Figure 2).

Dehulling, Roasting and Milling of Soybeans: Soybeans

Fig. 1: Flowchart for Wet-Extraction of Milk from were first sorted, washed and soaked for five hours in a
Soybeans Adopted with modification [4, 24] clean water of three times its weight by volume until the
coat became soaked and wet to assist in removal of some
soluble anti-nutrients and to facilitate dehulling. The
soybeans were further washed, drained and partially sun-
dried. The soybeans were then roasted at surface
temperature of 180 ± 5 °C for 30 minutes in an open thick
aluminium pot [25]. It was milled into fine flour with
hammer mill (Gibbons Electric, Essex, U.K.) and let to pass
through a 0.8µm mesh size screen and later packaged in a
plastic container and stored in iron cupboard (30 ± 2 °C)
until when needed for use [29].

Roasting and Milling of Tiger Nuts: Tiger nut was first

sorted, washed with clean water and drained. It was
roasted at surface temperature of 180 ± 5°C for 30 minutes
in an open thick aluminium pot [25, 29]. It was milled into
fine flour with hammer mill (Gibbons Electric, Essex, U.K.)
and let to pass through a 0.8 µm mesh size screen and
later packaged in a plastic container and was stored in
iron cupboard at ambient temperature (30 ± 2 °C) until
when needed for use [29].

Particle Size Determination: The particle size

determination of flours where done using laboratory test
Fig. 2: Flowchart for Wet-Extraction of Milk from Tiger sieve (Endecotts l.t.d London, England) in the Department
Nut Adopted with modification from Bamishaiye of Civil Engineering Laboratory, Adamawa State Ministry
and Bamishaiye [4] of Works, Yola as described by Chen et al. [30].

161
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

Preparation of Mother Starter Culture: Fresh raw cow

milk was first strained through a clean muslin cloth and
was autoclaved at 121°C for 15 minutes [24, 31and 32]. It
was cooled to 41°C and was inculcated with 2%
‘kindirmo’. The inoculated milk was incubated at 38°C and
was allowed to ferment for 24 hours [24] (Fig. 3).

Dry Extraction of Milk from Soybeans: The soybean

flour weighing 1 kg was constituted with 6 litres of clean
water, strained through muslin cloth. The soy milk was
then pasteurized at 95°C for 7 minutes [32, 33], cooled to
41°C and inoculated with 2% mother starter culture. This
was allowed to ferment at room temperature (37± 3°C) for
24 hours [32].

Dry Extraction of Milk from Tiger Nuts: Similarly,

Fig. 3: Flowchart for preparation of Mother Starter Figure 4 shows the dry extraction of milk from the tiger
Culture Adopted with modification from Sukumar nut flour. The tiger nut flour weighing 1 kg was mixed
[23] thoroughly with 8 litres of clean water and strained with

Fig. 4: Flowchart for yoghurt production

Source: Adopted with modification from Bristone [32].

162
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

Table 1: Yoghourt formulations from cow milk, milk extracts from soybean and tiger nut
Formulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of milk I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Soymilk - 50 - 80 - 50 20 80
Cow milk 100 50 50 20 20 - - -
Tiger nut milk - - 50 - 80 50 80 20
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

muslin cloth to obtain Tiger nut milk. This milk was Particle Size and Functional Properties: Particle size of
pasteurized at 95°C for 7 minutes [32, 33], cooled at 41°C soybean and tiger nut flours were determined as reported
and was inoculated with 2% mother starter culture. This by Chen et al. [30] while functional properties such as
was incubated at room temperature (37± 3°C) for 24 hours bulk density, percentage dispersibility and water
[32]. absorption capacity were also determined [26, 35].

Yoghurt Formulation: Eight yoghourt formulations Microbial Analysis: The total plate and mould counts of
were produced by varying the proportions of the ingredients and yoghourt formulations were
cow milk, soymilk and tiger nut milk. Formulation I determined using aseptic technique as described by
that had 100% cow milk was used as a control Collins and Lyne [36], Harrigan and McCance [37] and
(Table 1). Nkama et al. [38] and Badau et al. [39, 40and 41].
Samples of tiger nuts, soybeans and yoghourt
Yoghurt Production: Fresh cow milk was strained through formulations were taken. A prepared 1 ml of sample was
muslin cloth. It was pasteurized at 85°C for 15 minutes transferred into a bottle containing 9 ml of distilled water
[27], cooled to 41°C and was inoculated at that to form the stock solution as described by Diliello [42].
temperature with 2% ‘kindirmo’ mother starter culture. From the stock solution 1 ml was aseptically transferred
This was then fermented at room temperature (37 ± 3°C) into subsequent bottles containing sterile distilled water
for 24 hours [32]. using sterile pipette i.e. from first to second, from second
Wet extracted soymilk (Figure 1) was pasteurized at to third and from third to fourth until after tenfold required
85°C for 15 minutes [27], cooled to 41°C and was the serial dilution was made [42, 43]. Nutrient and Potato
fermented at 37 ± 3 °C for 24 hours [32]. dextrose agars were prepared as described by the
Wet extracted tiger nut milk was also pasteurized at manufacturers. Plates were inoculated by pour plate
95°C for 15 minutes but precipitation started at come up technique, incubated and colonies counted and reported
temperature of 50 °C which was discarded (flow chart not as colony forming unites per millilitre [29, 36- 43].
shown).
Dry extracted milk from soybean and tiger nuts were Sensory Evaluation: The cow milk, milk extracts from
reconstituted with water in the ratio of 1:6 and 1:8 w/v, soybean, tiger nut and yoghurt from the eight
respectively; pasteurized at temperature of 95 °C for formulations were evaluated on the basis of their quality
7 minutes, inoculated with 2% ‘kindirmo’ starter culture attributes (taste, texture, colour, flavour and overall
and fermented at temperature of 37 ± 3 °C for 24 hours acceptability) using nine point hedonic scale [4].
[32, 33] as shown in Figure 4. Although, the panelists were not trained but their
selection was based on basic requirements of a panelist,
Physicochemical Analysis: Physicochemical such as availability for the entire period of evaluation,
analyses were carried out on the fresh milk and interest, willing to serve, good health (not suffering from
yoghourt from cow milk, milk extracts from soybean colds), not allergic or sensitive to the products evaluated
and tiger nuts as described by AOAC [34]. Moisture, [45].
ash, protein, lipid and carbohydrate (calculated by
difference) contents were determined. The pH and Statistical Analysis: Data were subjected to analysis of
Titratable acidity of fresh milk and yoghourt from cow variance [46, 47 and 48] where appropriate and means
milk, milk extracts from soybean and tiger nuts were also separated by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at
determined [34]. 5% significance level [49].

163
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2: Physicochemical properties, functional properties and particle size
distribution of soybean and tiger nut flours

Proximate Composition, Functional Properties and Parameter Soybean Tiger nut

Particle Size Distribution of Soybeans and Tiger Nut: Physicochemical properties

Moisture (%) 4.15 ± 0.14a 4.49 ± 0.42a
The results of the proximate composition, functional a
Ash (%) 4.95 ± 0.24 2.49 ± 0.18b
properties and particle size distribution of soybean and a
Protein (%) 44.36 ± 0.00 7.80 ± 0.26b
tiger nut are shown in Table 2. The ash, protein, fat and
Fat (%) 20.00 ± 0.06b 26.26 ± 0.35a
carbohydrate contents of soybean differ significantly Carbohydrate (%) 26.54 ± 0.38b 58.96 ± 0.04a
(P<0.05) from that of tiger nut. However, the moisture pH 6.48 ± 0.01a 5.79 ± 0.06b
content of tiger nut did not differ (P>0.05) from that of Titratable acidity (%) 0.07 ± 0.01a 0.05 ± 0.00b
soybean. More importantly, significant (P<0.05) difference Functional properties
occurred in cow, soybean and tiger nut milks, with higher Bulk density (g/ml) 0.64 ± 0.01a 0.56 ± 0.01b
amount of ash, protein and fat were recorded in cow milk. Percentage dispersibility 42.00 ± 0.00b 62.67 ± 3.06a
However, quantity of water can be regulated during Water absorption capacity (ml/g) 1.63 ± 0.06b 2.60 ± 0.00a
constitution of flours with water to obtain similar pattern Particle size distribution
of cow milk especially in increasing the total solid. But 600 µm 0.00 ± 0.00b 4.06 ± 0.49a

this could affect production filtration if sieve of small 425 µm 5.33 ± 0.49b 9.29 ± 0.58a
300 µm 25.43 ± 0.51a 26.06 ± 0.93a
aperture is used for product uniformity. It was also
180 µm 45.37 ± 0.55a 33.84 ± 32.26b
observed that soybean milk was in the same range with b
150 µm 14.57 ± 0.51 22.92 ± 2.05a
cow milk in terms of their protein. Therefore, 1 kg of a
Base pan 9.29 ± 1.05 3.83 ± 0.80b
soybean flour can be constituted with 6 litres of water for
Each value is a mean ± S D of triplicate determinations. Mean values in a
appropriate mixing ratio for soybean milk making. row not sharing a common superscript letters are significantly (P< 0.05)
The pH and titratable acidity of soybeans differ different as assessed by Duncan multiple Range Test.
significantly (P<0.05) from that of tiger nut. Similarly the
bulk density, percentage dispersibility and water This mean that tiger nut flour was better constituted with
absorption capacity of tiger nut flour were significantly water than the soybeans flour. However the pH of
(P<0.05) different from soybean flour. The soybean flour soybean is better in terms of milk making because it was
was finer than that of tiger nut flour because more flour of within the standard pH of 6.4 and 6.6 of cow milk [52].
latter was retained at the base pan. Therefore, it is better for milk making especially for the
The proximate composition of tiger nut and soybean initiation of fermentation for yoghurt production if L.
obtained in this study is similar to those reported by other bulgaricus and S. thermophillus is considered as starter
researchers [4, 5, 11, 13 and 15]. Proximate composition is culture.
very important for compilers of food composition tables The result revealed that the sieve aperture used
and databases that could be used by economists, ranged from 600 µm to 150 µm. The sample size that was
agricultural planners, nutritionists, dietitians, food service used in each of the determination was 40 g. The highest
managers, food and agricultural scientists, manufacturers, percentage of flour was retained on the 180 µm mesh size.
food technologists, home economists, teachers, A 100% of soybean flour passed through 600 µm mesh
epidemiologists, physicians, dentists, public health size with nothing retains. This means that the particle size
scientists, non-specialist consumers and journalists [50]. of soybeans was finer than tiger nut flour even though
The functional property of food is an important factor both passed through 0.8 mm mesh screen during milling.
in food processing operation [51]. High bulk density of The particle size distribution of flour is known to play an
food is required for easy packing, transportation, energy important role in its functional properties and the quality
density, because it allows more weight of food per limited of end products [53].
unit volume. The bulk density of 0.64 ± 0.01 for soybeans
flour and 0.56 ± 0.01 for tiger nut flour in Table 2 means Physiochemical Properties: Table 3 shows the
that high weight of soybeans flour occupied limited space physicochemical properties of cow milk, milk
than in tiger nut flour. It was also observed that both extracts from soybeans and tiger nut obtained by
percentage dispersibility and water absorption capacity wet and dry extraction processes. Yoghourts produced
of tiger nut flour is higher than that of soybean flour. from the eight formulations are shown in Figure 2,

164
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

Table 3: Physicochemical properties of cow milk and milk extract from soybean and tiger nut obtained by wet and dry extraction processes
Soybean milk Tiger nut milk
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
Parameters Cow milk Wet extraction Dry extraction Wet extraction Dry extraction
e d b a
Moisture 88.34± 0.10 89.40 ± 0.64 91.36 ± 0.14 92.44 ± 0.50 90.22 ± 0.37 c
a c b c
Fat 3.35 ± 0.23 0.85 ± 0.08 1.66 ± 0.21 0.71 ± 0.10 0.97 ± 0.06c
b a a d
Protein 3.08 ± 0.07 3.47 ± 0.04 3.40 ± 0.09 0.83 ± 0.03 1.74 ± 0.10c
a c b d
Ash 0.72 ± 0.02 0.32 ± 0.04 0.52 ± 0.04 0.20 ± 0.01 0.32 ± 0.04c
c b d b
Carbohydrate 4.56 ± 0.08 5.95 ± 0.63 3.06 ± 0.29 5.81 ± 0.48 6.76 ± 0.41 a
Total solid 11.66 ± 0.10a 10.60 ± 0.64b 8.64 ± 0.14d 7.56 ± 0.50 e 9.78 ± 0.37 c
pH 6.44 ± 0.01a 6.45 ± 0.01a 6.48 ± 0.01a 6.16 ± 0.01b 5.79 ± 0.06c
d b c a
Titratable acidity 0.06 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.01 0.49 ± 0.37 0.10 ± 0.01 0.05 ± 0.00 d
Each value is a mean ± SD of triplicate determinations.
Mean values in a row not sharing a common superscript letters are significantly (P< 0.05) different as assessed by Duncan multiple Range Test.

Table 4: Physicochemical properties of yoghourt from eight formulations1

Formulations Moisture Fat Protein Ash Carbohydrate Total solid pH Titratable acidity
Cow-soy Yoghurt (50:50) 88.73±0.06c 3.26±0.21a 3.56±0.11a 0.68±0.07 a 3.77±0.16 e 11.27±0.06 b 4.09±0.02 e 0.10±0.01 b
Cow milk yoghurt (100) 86.44±1.27e 2.59±0.24b 3.47±0.04a 0.61±0.04ab 6.90±1.03 b 13.56±1.27 a 4.06±0.01 e 0.09±0.01 b
Cow-tiger nut -yoghurt (50:50) 88.61±0.02c 2.17±0.08c 2.60±0.03 c 0.61±0.7ab 6.01±0.10 c 11.39±0.20 b 3.97±0.06 f 1.09±0.01 a
Cow- soy yoghurt (20:80) 89.80±0.03b 2.03±0.07c 3.52±0.09a 0.56±0.06 b 4.09±0.10 e 10.20±0.03 c 4.60±0.01 c 0.09±0.01 b
ab d d b d cd f
Cow-tiger nut-yoghurt (20:80) 90.52±0.02 1.56±0.08 2.16±0.08 0.56±0.02 5.20±0.15 9.48±0.02 3.97±0.01 1.13±0.06 a
a ef c c e e b
Soy-tiger nut-yoghurt (50:50) 91.23±0.03 1.29±0.04 2.63±0.06 0.42±0.03 4.43±0.03 8.50±0.44 4.65±0.02 0.09±0.01 b
d f d d a a d
Soy-tiger nut yoghurt (20:80) 87.23±0.06 1.15±0.05 2.14±0.06 0.22±0.04 9.27±0.10 12.77±0.06 4.49±0.02 0.01±0.01 c
a de b c e de a
Soy-tiger nut yoghurt (80:20) 90.83±0.03 1.50±0.02 3.13±0.05 0.44±0.03 4.10±0.04 9.17±0.03 4.75±0.02 0.11±0.01 b
Each value is a mean ± SD of triplicate determinations.
Mean values in a row not sharing a common superscript letters are significantly (P< 0.05) different as assessed by Duncan multiple Range Test.

while their physicochemical properties are shown in

Table 4. There were significant (P< 0.05) variations
among the parameters studied. Cow milk had higher
(P<0.05) fat, ash and total solid than soybean and tiger
nut milks. The pH of cow milk was not significantly
(P>0.0) different from that of soybean milk. However, tiger
nut milk had the lowest pH (P<0.95). The physicochemical
properties of cow milk was significantly (P < 0.05) different
to tiger nut milk than to soybeans milk. Both cow milk and
soybean milk fell within the standard pH of 6.4 and 6.6,
respectively [52].
Greater significant (p<0.05) difference occurred in pH
of the yogurt from the various formulations, with highest
pH of 4. 75 was recorded in soy-tiger nut yoghurt (80:20)
and lowest pH of 3.97 recorded in cow-tiger nut yoghurt
(20:80) and cow-tiger nut yoghourt (50:50) while cow milk
yoghurt (100%) recorded pH of 4.06±0.01. The decrease in
pH and increase in titratable acidity of yoghurt during
fermentation is the desired quality characteristics of good
yoghurt. The recommended titratable acidity for fresh
yoghurt is 0.85 to 0.95 per cent as lactic acid and pH of
Fig. 2: Yoghourt produced from the eight formulations 4.40 to 4.50 [52]. The moisture and the total solids are

165
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

Table 5: Total microbial count of milk types and yoghurt formulations

Microbial Count (Cfu/ml)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameters Total bacterial plate count Mould Plate Count
5
Cow milk 1.4 x 10 0.5 x 105
5
Soymilk 7.5 x 10 4.1 x 105
5
Tiger nut milk 5.1 x 10 4.3 x 105
Cow-soy yoghurt (50:50) 9.1 x 105 5.6 x 105
Cow milk yoghurt (100) 10.5 x 105 8.7 x 105
Cow-tiger nut yoghurt (50:50) 6.0 x 105 5.8 x 105
Cow-soy yoghurt (20:80) 6.7 x 105 3.2 x 105
Cow-tiger nut yoghurt (20:80) 7.1 x 105 6.3 x 105
Soy-tiger nut yoghurt (50:50) 1.3 x 105 4.9 x 105
5
Soy-tiger nut yoghurt (20:80) 6.6 x 10 2.4 x 105
5
Soy-tiger nut yoghurt (80:20) 8.9 x 10 8.5 x 105
Each value is a mean of triplicate determinations.

Table 6: Sensory Scores of different types of Milk

Types of milk Appearance Aroma Texture Taste Overall acceptability
Cow milk 7.40 ± 1.52a 8.00 ± 1.00a 8.00 ± 1.22a 7.40 ± 1.14a 7.60 ± 0.89 ab
Soymilk 8.60 ± 0.55a 8.40 ± 0.55a 8.00 ± 0.71a 7.40 ± 1.14a 8.40 ± 0.55 a
b a a a
Tiger nut milk 4.60 ± 1.52 7.40 ± 1.52 6.60 ± 2.07 7.20 ± 1.79 6.80 ± 0.84 b
Each value is a mean ± SD scores of five panellists
Mean values in a column not sharing a common superscript letters are significantly (p<0.05) different as assessed by Duncan Multiple Range Test

Table 7: Sensory Scores of Yoghurt from eight Formulations

Formulations Consistency Flavour Taste Colour Texture Overall Acceptance
Cow-soy yoghurt (50:50) 7.10±1.37b 6.80±1.62a 6.70±2.06ab 7.40±1.07ab 7.30±1.57 ab 7.60±0.97 ab
Cow milk yoghurt (100) 8.50±0.97a 7.40±2.27a 7.80±1.03a 8.40±1.07 a 8.20±1.14 a 8.30±0.95 a
Cow-tiger nut yoghurt (50:50) 6.90±1.66c 6.10±1.10ab 5.70±1.42bc 5.80±1.48 bcde 6.70±2.00 abc 6.40±1.58 bc
Cow-soy yoghurt (20:80) 6.20±0.92bc 4.90±1.60bc 5.90±1.52bc 6.50±2.07 bc 5.90±1.97 bc 5.80±2.15 cd
Cow-Tiger Nut yoghurt (20:80) 5.50±1.27cd 4.60±2.37bc 4.80±1.75c 4.80±1.75 dc 5.10±1.20 c 4.70±1.89 d
Soy-Tiger Nut yoghurt (50:50) 4.90±1.10cd 3.60±1.07c 4.90±1.29 c 5.00±1.94 cde 5.10±2.08 c 4.70±1.16 d
d c c e c
Soy-Tiger Nut yoghurt (20:80) 4.40±1.51 3.80±1.62 5.10±1.79 4.30±2.36 5.10±2.18 4.60±1.78 d
d c bc bcd c
Soy-Tiger Nut Yoghurt (80:20) 4.40±2.01 4.40±1.51 6.00±1.33 6.30±1.34 5.10±2.13 5.20±2.30 cd
Each value is a mean ± SD scores of ten panellists.
Mean values in a column not sharing a common superscript letters are significantly (p<0.05) different as assessed by Ducan Multiple Range Test.

also an important factor in rating yoghurt. Moisture and 8.7 x 105 CFU/ml. The formulation of 100% yoghurt
total solids can be controlled by the addition of powdered produced from cow milk had the highest number of count
milk or evaporation during pasteurization of milk for for both mould and total plate count. Probably, cow milk
desired yoghourt [23]. The result of moisture and total is a good medium for microbial growth despite the initial
solids of yoghurt formulations showed significant low count of cow milk as compared to soybean and tiger
(p<0.05) difference, with highest total solids were nut milk. The yoghurt formulation soy – tiger nut yoghurt
recorded in cow milk yoghurt (100%) followed by soy- (50:50), had the lowest total plate count of 1.3 x 10 5
tiger nut yoghurt (20:80). High total solid often indicates CFU/ml. The highest count of 100% yoghurt produced
richness of yoghurt (Table 4). from cow milk indicated high rate of microbial activity or
fermentation.
Total Microbial Count: The total microbial count of milk
and yoghurt formulations is presented in Table 5. Result Sensory Scores: The sensory score of milks is shown in
of the total plate count ranged from 1.3 x 105 to 10.5 x 105 Table 6. The results showed no significant (P<0.05)
CFU/ml and for the mould count ranges from 0.5 x 105 to difference in flavour, texture and taste except for

166
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

appearance and overall acceptance. The significant 2. El-Batawy, O.I., I.S. Ashoush and N.S. Mehanna,
(P<0.05) difference in appearance and overall acceptance 2014. Impact of mango and pomegranate peels
of milks is attributed to the much brown colour of tiger nut supplementation on quality characteristics of
milk. No significant (P<0.05) difference in flavour, texture yoghourt with or without whey powder. World
and taste, may be due to the fact that proportion of Journal of Dairy and Food Sciences, 9(1): 57-65.
panellist naturally like or disliked cow milk flavour as some 3. Farinde, E.O., V.A. Obatolu, S.B. Fasoyiro,
commented on the score shits. A.H. Adeniran and E.R. Agboola, 2008. Use of
The sensory score of yoghurt produced from the alternative raw materials for yoghourt production.
eight formulations is shown in Table 7. Significance African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(18): 3339-3345.
(p<0.05) variation was observed in the formulations. 4. Bamishaiye, E.I. and O.M. Bamishaiye, 2011.
Formulation Cow-soy yoghurt (50:50) showed no Tiger nut: as a plant, its Derivatives and benefits.
significant (p<0.05) difference as compared to cow milk African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and
yoghurt (100%) except for consistency. Formulation cow- Development, 11: 5157-5169.
tiger nut yoghurt (50:50) also showed close score to cow 5. Akoma, O., U.O. Elekwa, A.T. Afodunrinbi and
milk yoghurt than other formulations. Much significant G.C. Onyeukwu, 2000. Yoghourt from coconut and
variation among the formulations may be due to brown tiger nut. The Journal of Food Technology in Africa,
colour of soybeans and also much brown colour of tiger 5: 132-134.
nut as a result of roasting. It was also observed that 6. Nwaoguikpe, R.N., 2010. The phytochemical,
during this study, formulations containing tiger nut or proximate and amino acid compositions of the
much of tiger nut have stable storage stability than others extracts of two varieties of tiger nut (Cyperus
and as the proportion of cow milk was increased in the esculentus) and their effects on sickle cell
formulations, the acceptability of the products were also
haemoglobin polymerization. Journal of Medicine
increased, as observed in formulations; cow-soy yoghurt
and Medical Sciences, 1: 543-549.
(20:80), cow-soy yoghurt (50:50), cow milk (100%) and
7. Ukwuru, M.U. and A.C. Ogbodo, 2011. Effect of
also in formulations containing tiger nut.
processing treatment on the quality of tiger nut milk.
Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10: 95-100.
CONCLUSIONS
8. Nwobosi, P.N.U., N.R. Isu and O.O. Agarr, 2013.
Influence of pasteurization and use of natural tropical
Soybeans or tiger nut milk, if properly produced can
preservatives on the quality attributes of tiger nut
be effectively used for acceptable yoghurt formulations.
drink during storage. International Journal of Food
The process adopted in this study successfully produce
and Nutrition Science, 2: 27-32.
acceptable milks and yoghurts. However, further study is
9. Ukwuru, M.U., C.L. Ibeneme and G.I. Agbo, 2011.
recommended to enhance some quality aspects for
New product development from tiger nut
commercial scale production, especially the wet Extraction
process. (Cyperus esculentus) and their sensory, proximate
and microbiological evaluation. Pakistan Journal of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Nutrition, 10: 101-105.
10. Chima, O.A., C.I. Abuajah and R.A. Utuk, 2013.
The authors appreciate the effort of the chief Tigernut milk: A nutritious under-utilized food
technologists: Mr. Vincent Glaku Zira and Madam F. ingredient. Food Biology, 2(2): 14-17.
Eliseme of Modibbo Adama University of Technology 11. Gambo, A. and A. Da’u, 2914. Tiger nut (Cyperus
Yola, Nigeria for their technical support. esculentus): Composition, products, uses and
health benefits-A review. Bayero Journal of Pure and
REFERENCES Applied Sciences (Bajopas), 7: 56-61.
12. Adgidzi, E.A., E.K. Ingbian and J.O. Abu, 2011.
1. Ihekoronye, A.I. and P.O. Ngoddy, 1985. Integrated Effects of hot water and steam blanching on the
Food Science and Technology for the Tropics. quality of aqueous extract from tiger nuts
Macmillan Education Ltd, London and Oxford, (Cyperus esculentus). Production, Agriculture and
pp: 106-112, 189-190, 343-351. Technology (PAT), 7(1): 90-102.

167
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

13. Udeozor, L.O., 2012. Tiger nut-soy milk drink: 23. Stringer, M., 2000. Chilled Foods. A comprehensive
Preparation, proximate composition and sensory guide, 2nd ed., Wood head publishing limited,
qualities. International Journal of Food and Nutrition Cambridge England, pp: 162-168. Make references like
Science, 1: 18-25. this style.
14. Djomdi, N., J.K.G. Kramer, D.J. VanderJagt, R. Ejoh, R. 24. Sukumar, D., 2002. Outline of Dairy Technology,
Ndjouekeu and R.H. Glew, 2013. Influence of soaking 7th impression, Manzar Khan Ltd, pp: 109-111.
on biochemical compoenets of tiger nut (Cyperus 25. Iwe, M.O., 2003. The Science and Technology of
esculentus) tubers cultivated in Cameroon. Soybeans Chemistry, Nutrition, Processing,
International Journal of Food Process Engineering, Utilization, Rojoint Communications Services
1: 1-15. [Link], Nigeria, pp: 27-64, 148-196.
15. Imam, T.S., F.G. Aliyu and H.F. Umar, 2013. 26. Adejuyitan, J.A., E.T. Otunola, E.A. Akande,
Preliminary phytochemical screening, elemental and I.F. Bolarinwa and F.M. Oladokun, 2009. Some
proximate composition of two varieties of Cyperus physicochemical properties of flour obtained from
esculentus (tiger nut). Nigerian Journal of Basic and fermentation of tigernut (Cyperus esculentus)
Applied Science, 21: 247-251. sourced from a market in Ogbomoso, Nigeria. African
16. Musa, A.A. and A. Hamza, 2013. Comparative Journal of Food Science, 3: 51-55.
analysis of locally prepared “kunun aya” (Tiger nut 27. Amanze, K.O. and J.O. Amanze, 2011. Quality
milk) consumed by students of Kaduna state evaluation of yoghourt from cowmilk, soymilk and
university, Kaduna, Nigeria. Science World Journal, cow/soymilk. JORIND, 9(2): 44-47.
8: 13-18. 28. Sudi, I.Y., N. De and U.A. Dunkrah, 2011. Nigerian
17. Awad, R.A., A.E. Hagrass, W.M. Salama, F.A. Abd indigenous yoghourt (‘kindirmo’) production using
Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus
Elmalek and A.I. Eldardiry, 2014. Lactulose
thermophilus mutants as starter culture. African
production from milk permeate and its performance
Journal of Biotechnology, 10(9): 1651-1654.
in healthy functional frozen yoghourt. World Journal
29. Badau, M.H., I.A. Jideani and I. Nkama, 2006.
of Dairy and Food Sciences, 9: 1-9.
Rheological behaviour of weaning food formulations
18. Ismael, S.M., A.M. Farahat, Y.M. Ebrahim and
as affected by addition of malt. International Journal
S.T. Gohari, 2014. Functional and nutritional
of Food Science and Technology, 41: 1222-1228.
properties of stirred yoghourt supplemented
30. Chen, J.C., C. Lii and S. Lu, 2004. Relationship
with silymarin and its impact on chronic hepatic
between grain physicochemical characteristics
damage. World Journal of Dairy and Food Sciences,
and flour particle size distribution for Taulian rice
9: 36-50.
cultivars. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis,
19. Udeze, O.S., A.I. Ishola, N.C. Nnaemeka and
12: 52-58.
I. Austine, 2014. Mineral composition of bambara
31. Fawole, M.O., 1988. Laboratory Manual of
nut-tiger nut-coconut milk beverage blends. Journal Microbiology, 1st Edition, Spectrum Books Ltd,
of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 2: 231-235. Ibadan, pp: 6-33.
20. Adedokun, I.I., S.U. Okorie and B. Barizaa, 2014. 32. Bristone, C., 2006. Microbial ecology and spoilage
Evaluation of proximate, fibre qualities and consumer association of milk and milk products, [Link].
acceptability of bambaranut-tiger nut-coconut milk Project, Federal University of Technology, Yola.
beverage blends. International Journal of Nutrition 33. Lee, W.J. and J.A., 2010. Formation and Physical
and Food Sciences, 3: 430-437. Properties of Yoghourt. Asian Journal of Animal
21. Udeozor, L.O. and S.O. Awonorin, 2014. Comparative Science, 23(9): 1127-1136.
microbial analysis and storage of tiger nut soy milk 34. AOAC., 1990. Association of official Analytical
extract. Austin Journal of Nutrition and Food chemist, official method of analysis, 14th edition,
Sciences, 2: 1-6. Washington D.C.
22. Wakil, S.M., O.T. Ayenuro and K.A. Oyinlola, 2014. 35. Asma, M.A., E.B. Elfadil and A. ELTinay, 2006.
Microbiological and nutritional assessment of starter- Development of Weaning food from sorghum
developed fermented tiger nut milk. Food and supplemented with legumes and oil seeds. Food and
Nutrition Sciences, 5: 495-506. Nutrition Bulletin, 22: 26-34.

168
 World J. Dairy & Food Sci., 10 (2): 159-169, 2015

36. Collins, C.H. and P.M. Lyne, 1970. Microbiological 45. Penfield, M.P. and A.M. Campbell, 1990. Experimental
methods. Laboratory technique series. University Food Sciences. 3rd edn. Academic Press, Inc.,
Park Press, Baltimore, London, pp: 363-396. New York, pp: 23-77.
37. Harrigan, W.F. And M.E. McCance, 1976. Laboratory 46. Steel, N.H. and J.K. Torrie, 1980. Principles and
Methods in Food and Dairy Microbiology. Academic Procedures of statistics. McGraw Hill book Co.
Press, London, pp: 20-42. New York, USA, pp: 100-520, 633.
38. Nkama, I., M.H. Badau, E.K. Collinson, W. Mian, 47. Gomez, K.A. and A.A. Gomez, 1983. Statistical
J.O. Igene and C.A. Negbenebor, 1994. Microflora of procedures for agricultural research, 2 nd Ed., A Wiley-
some dried spices and condiments sold in Maiduguri Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, New
Market, Nigeria. Journal of Food Science and York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore,
Technology, 31(5): 420-422. pp: 7-84, 187-240.
39. Badau, M.H., G.O. Salami and A.L. Kassum, 2001. 48. Mead, R., R.N. Curnow and A.M. Hasted, 1993.
Microbiological assay of ingredients, contact Statistical Methods in Agriculture and experimental
surfaces and stages in akara processing at three Biology, 2 nd Ed., Chapman & Hall, London, UK.,
locations in Maiduguri, Nigeria. Agro-Science: pp: 111-130.
Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment 49. Duncan, D.E., 1955. Multiple range and Multiple f-
and Extension, 2: 42-49. tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.
40. Badau, M.H., O.L. Imhoede and I. Nkama, 2001. 50. Greenfield, H. and D.A.T. Southgate, 2003. Food
Production, acceptability and bacteriological quality composition data production, management and use.
of kunun zaki in Maiduguri metropolis. Nigerian Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 10: 67-82. Nations, pp: 15-16.
41. Badau, M.H., A.M. Adeniran and I. Nkama, 2001. 51. Balogun, I.O. and O.P. Olatidoye, 2010. Functional
Fungi associated with various fresh meat sold in properties of dehulled and undehulled velvet beans.
Maiduguri market, Nigeria. Science Forum: Journal of Journal of Biological Sciences and Bioconservation,
Pure and Applied Sciences, 4: 255-262. 2: 1-10.
42. Diliello, L.K., 1982. Methods in food and dairy 52. Egan, H., R.S. Skirk and R. Sawyer, 1988. Pearson’s
Microbiology, A.V. publishing CO. Mc Westport Chemical Analysis of food, 8th edition, Longman
Connecticut, pp: 49-58. Scientific and Technical, London, pp: 432-505.
43. Jideani, V.A. and I.A. Jideani, 2006. Laboratory 53. Sahin, S. and S.G. Sumnu, 2006. Physical Properties
manual of food bacteriology, Amana Printing and of Foods. publisher (Springer Science+Business
Advertising Ltd. Kaduna-Nigeria, pp: 56-113. Media, LLC., 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013,
44. Larmond, E., 1977. Laboratory methods for sensory USA), pp: 1-36.
evaluation of food, Canadian Government Publishing
Centre, Ottawa, Canada, pp: 6-73.

169