Sensory evaluation and cost calculation of plant milk and its product

Introduction

Since 2700 BC, millet has been cultivated in African nations as one of the ancient cereals. Together, a number of tiny seeded grains that are members of the Poaceae family are referred to as millet. Millet is a highly significant crop since it has a shorter growing season than other major grains, is resistant to diseases and pests, and is known to withstand drought. Food free of gluten is millet. Coarse grains grown in warm areas that have historically been used for food and fodder include sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet, minor millets (barnyard millet, proso millet, kodo millet, tiny millet, and foxtail millet), maize, and barley. Food security is provided by millets cultivation since they are a sustainable food source that contributes to the fight against hunger in a world where climate change is happening. Millets are a crop that helps farmers retain economic security because they require little initial investment and are very resistant to climatic change. Patients with celiac disease can use millet as a replacement [1] . Growing worries about personal health and environmental issues have led to a global upsurge in the popularity of vegetarian diets [2] . This has facilitated the creation of plant-based milk alternatives. The bulk of plant-based milk substitutes in the past, such as soymilk and ragi milk made from finger millet, were produced on a small scale at home or on a big scale for commercial purposes, for the benefit of the family or the community [3] . Plant-based milk substitutes are produced by soaking or wetting dissolved and broken-down plant parts, like seeds or edible sections, in water extracts; alternatively, the raw material can be ground dry and the flour can be recovered with water; the resulting slurry is then filtered or decanted to remove insoluble plant parts and ground debris [4] . Soymilk was the first plantbased milk alternative that could be bought. Additional plant components, including cereals, pseudocereals, and grains like oats, barley, almond, coconut, rice, millet, corn, sorghum, quinoa, and chia, were included in the process of developing non-dairy milk substitutes [5][6][7] . Since they don't contain certain elements found in dairy products like cholesterol, saturated fats, antigens, and lactose, as well as being a good source of minerals, non-allergic proteins, essential fatty acids, and other nutrients, plant-based milks are a great substitute for dairy products [8] . A growing number of economically disadvantaged individuals in developing countries are looking for more affordable options, such as plant-based milk substitutes. Grain and legume alternatives for dairy milk are now acknowledged as plant sources of vitamins, dietary fiber, minerals, and antioxidants [8] .

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the research laboratories of the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology's faculty of food science and nutrition department. The millets used which were foxtail millet, barnyard millet and finger millet were purchased from the local market of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. All the other consumables were obtained from the local market in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

Formulation of Products

Millet Milk 200 g of each millet was soaked for 12 hrs. After soaking extra water was drained. Four treatments was made with different millet to water ratio which were named as treatment 1 (T 1 ), treatment 2 (T 2 ), treatment 3 (T 3 ) and treatment 4 (T 4 ). The ratio of millet to water were as follows: T 1 (1:2), T 2 (1:3), T 3 (1:4) and T 4 (1:5). The soaked 200 g of millet was divided in 4 equal parts of 50 g each and grinded with water according to the different treatments to be prepared. After grinding filtration was done with the help of muslin cloth. The extracted milk was grinded again for 10 minutes for homogenisation.

Millet Milk Chapati Spread

The different treatments of milk was used to make chapati spread. It was mixed with roasted sesame and poopy seeds along with some sugar, nutmeg powder and agar powder. It was cooked on low flame until it started turning brown and taking texture of thick chapati spread.

Millet Residue Energy Bar

The residues left after the milk extraction was roasted with ghee. It was mixed with roasted peanut powder and sesame seeds. Jaggery syrup was made by cooking jaggery with water. Jaggery used was 41% of total residue left. All ingredients were mixed and cooking was done on medium flame until it was cooked. After that it was given shape of energy bar.

Sensory evaluation

A nine-point hedonic scale was used to create an appropriate scorecard. The chosen characteristics were categorized into modalities, which included general acceptability, taste, flavor, texture, color, and appearance. Ten trained panel members were asked to rate each of the attributes stated on the score card on a scale of one to ten.

Statistical Analysis

ANOVA (analysis of variance) was performed on the data. Each sample's scores were tallied for every sensory feature, including appearance, texture, colour, flavour, taste, after taste, and general acceptability. The panel's assessment of the product's sensory quality was represented by the mean value that was determined for each sample attribute.

Results and Discussion

Millet Milk

Cow milk was taken as control group (T 0 ) during sensory evaluation of millet milk. Among all the treatments of millet milk, overall acceptability of T 3 of foxtail millet milk, T 2 of barnyard millet milk and T 4 of finger millet milk received highest score of 7.8±0.6, 7.5±0.7 and 7.8±0.4 respectively. The overall acceptability of treatments of millet milk of the three millets showed significant difference (p<0.05), with control (T 0 ) group. The graphical representation of results of sensory evaluation is given in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 and tabular representation is given in Table 1 Millet Milk Chapati Spread Among all the treatments of millet milk chapati spread of the three millets used, overall acceptability of T 3 of foxtail millet milk, T 2 of barnyard millet milk and T 4 of finger millet milk received highest score of 8.4±0.6, 8.3±0.6 and 7.6±0.5 respectively. The chapati spread's overall acceptability showed significant difference (p<0.05) from T 1 . The graphical representation of the results obtained in sensory evaluation is given in figure 4, figure 5 and figure 6. The tabular representation of data obtained in sensory evaluation of products is given in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. 7±0.9 6.0±0.6 5.7±0.6 7.6±0.5 6.3±0.6 6.4±0.5 5.9±0.5 6.1±0.7 6.4±0.5 7.6±0.5 Colour 8.1±0.5 7.3±0.4 7.4±0.5 8.6±0.5 7.6±0.6 6.9±0.7 8.1±0.5 7.6±0.5 7.6±0.5 6.5±0.5 6.9±0.5 7.3±0.4 8.4±0.5 Appearance 8.1±0.5 6.3±0.4 6.7±0.4 6.6±0.6 6.5±0.5 6.5±0.5 6.9±0.7 6.7±0.6 6.7±0.6 6.1±0.7 6.4±0.5 6.6±0.5 7.5±0.5 Flavour 8.4±0.5 6.6±0.5 6.8±0.7 7.7±0.4 7.0±0.6 6.4±0.5 7.9±0.7 7.1±0.7 6.3±0.4 6.5±0.5 6.8±0.6 6.6±0.6 8.0±0.8 Texture 7.9±0.5 6.4±0.5 6.7±0.6 7.3±0.6 6.8±0.6 6.6±0.6 7.7±0.6 7.1±0.5 6.4±0.5 6.7±0.4 7.1±0.5 7.0±0.8 7.7±0.4 After Taste 8.6±0.5 5.8±0.7 6.1±0.5 7.8±0.4 7.5±0.5 6.5±0.5 7.5±0.5 6.7±0.8 6.3±0.4 6.9±0.5 6.7±0.4 7.4±0.5 8.1±0.8 Overall Acceptability 8.6±0.5 6.5±0.5 6.9±0.7 7.8±0.6 7.0±0.8 6.8±0.7 7.5±0.7 7.1±0.7 7.0±0.8 6.1±0.7 6.5±0.5 7.1±0.7 7.8±0.4 Note: Values are expressed as mean±SD of three determinations. Control cow milk (T0), T1 (millet to water ratio 1:2), T2 (1:3 millet to water ratio), T3 (1:4 millet to water ratio), T4 (millet to water ratio 1:5). 7±0.8 7.4±0.5 6.7±0.6 6.5±0.7 6.8±0.9 7.6±0.5 Note: Values are expressed as mean±SD of three determinations. T1 (millet to water ratio 1:2), T2 (1:3 millet to water ratio), T3 (1:4 millet to water ratio), T4 (millet to water ratio 1:5).

Calculation of cost of products Millet Milk

Grinding 200 g of millet with 1000 ml of water gives 1 L of millet milk.The cost of producing millet milk was calculated for 1 litre. The estimated cost of millet milk of the three millets was calculated according to the cost of millet and amount of millet required (200 g) for producing 1 L millet milk. So the estimated cost came as: 26 Rs (Foxtail millet), 34 Rs (Barnyard millet), 16 Rs (Finger millet).

Millet Milk Chapati Spread

For preparing 1000 g (1 kg) spread 1200 ml milk, 250 g sesame, 250 g poppy seeds, 200 gram sugar, 12 gram nutmeg powder and 100 g agar powder is required. The estimated cost calculated was: 1270 Rs (Foxtail millet milk chapati spread), 1280 Rs (Barnyard millet milk chapati spread), 1258 Rs (finger millet milk chapati spread).

Millet Residue Energy Bar

For preparing 1 kg millet residue energy bar, 1 kg of millet is required from which after milk extraction around 800 g residue will be left. Other ingredients required are 120 g jaggery, 55g roasted peanut powder, 5g ghee and 20 g sesame. The estimated cost calculated was: 172 Rs (foxtail millet residue bar), 211 Rs (barnyard millet residue bar) and 122 Rs (Finger millet residue bar).

Conclusion

The millet milk is a very good option for those who cannot consume dairy milk and its products because of lactose intolerance. The developed millet milk and its products was found to be acceptable by people. The particular treatments of the products receiving highest score for overall acceptability can be consumed by people as a substitute for commercially available similar products having ingredients of dairy origin. T 2 of barnyard millet milk, T 3 of foxtail millet milk and T 4 of finger millet milk scored highest in overall acceptability. The chapati spread made with these treatment of milks also scored highest in overall acceptability. Foxtail millet residue energy bar was most acceptable among the other two energy bars. With some further research on these products, they can be made more acceptable by consumers.

References

1. Singh E, Singh E. Potential of Millets: Nutrients Composition and Health Benefits. J Sci Innov Res [Internet]. 2016;5(2):46-50. Available from: www.jsirjournal.com
2. Messina V, Mangels AR. Considerations in Planning Vegan Diets: Children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Jun 1;101(6):661-669.
3. Jeske S, Bez J, Arendt EK, Zannini E. Formation, stability, and sensory characteristics of a lentil-based milk substitute as affected by homogenisation and pasteurisation. Eur Food Res Technol. 2019 Jul 1;245(7):1519-1531.
4. Jeske S, Zannini E, Arendt EK. Past, present and future: The strength of plant-based dairy substitutes based on gluten-free raw materials. Food Res Int. 2018 Aug 1;110:42-51.
5. Pineli LLO, Botelho RBA, Zandonadi RP, Solorzano JL, de Oliveira GT, Reis CEG, et al. Low glycemic index and increased protein content in a novel quinoa milk. LWT -Food Sci Technol. 2015 Oct 1;63(2):12611267.
6. Salmerón I, Thomas K, Pandiella SS. Effect of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria on the physicochemical composition and acceptance of fermented cereal beverages. J Funct Foods. 2015 May 1;15:106-115.
7. Das A, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. Cereal based functional food of Indian subcontinent: A review. J Food Sci Technol [Internet]. 2012 Dec 5 [cited 2024 Jul 9];