Nutritional analysis of millet milk (Foxtail millet, barnyard millet and finger millet) and it’s product

Introduction

One of the ancient cereals, millet, has been grown in African countries since 2700 BC. The term "millet" refers to a group of little seeded grains that belong to the Poaceae family. Due to its shorter growth season than other major grains, resistance to pests and diseases, and ability to endure drought, millet is a crop of great importance. Millet is a gluten-free food. Sorghum, finger millet, pearl millet, minor millets (barnyard millet, proso millet, kodo millet, small millet, and foxtail millet), maize, and barley are examples of coarse grains that have historically been cultivated in warm climates and utilized as food and fodder. Because millets are a sustainable food source that helps fight hunger in a world where climate change is happening, their cultivation provides food security. Because millets are highly resistant to climate change and need little initial investment, they are a crop that helps farmers maintain economic security. Millet can be used as a substitute for those who suffer from celiac disease (Singh & Singh, 2016) [15] . Vegetarian diets are becoming more and more popular worldwide as concerns about environmental and personal health issues grow (Messina & Mangels, 2001) [10] . This has made it easier to create plant-based milk substitutes. In the past, the majority of plant-based milk substitutes, including soymilk and ragi milk made from finger millet, were manufactured on a small scale for household use or on a large scale for business use, with the intention of benefiting the community or the family (Jeske et al., 2019) [5] . A plant's seeds or edible sections are dissolved and broken down by soaking or wetting them in water extracts to create plant-based milk substitutes; 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 (Jeske et al., 2018) [6] . The first commercially available plant-based milk substitute was soymilk. In the process of creating non-dairy milk alternatives, other plant ingredients such as cereals, pseudocereals, and grains like oats, barley, almond, coconut, rice, millet, corn, sorghum, quinoa, and chia were added (Pineli et al., 2015; Salmerón et al., 2015; Sethi et al., 2016) [11,13,14] . Plant-based milks are an excellent alternative to dairy products because they lack some of the components found in dairy products, such as cholesterol, saturated fats, antigens, and lactose. They are also a good source of minerals, non-allergic proteins, essential fatty acids, and other nutrients (Das et al., 2012) [13] . More and more underprivileged people in developing nations are searching for less expensive options, such plant-based milk alternatives. It is now recognized that plant supplies of vitamins, dietary fiber, minerals, and antioxidants can be found in grains and legumes, which can serve as dairy milk substitutes (Das et al., 2012) [13] .

Materials and Methods

The study was carried out in the food science and nutrition department's research labs at the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology. The millets that were used, finger millet, barnyard millet, and foxtail millet, were bought at the Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, local market. The local Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, market was the source of all other consumables.

Formulation of Products Millet Milk

Each millet weighed 200g was steeped for 12 hours. Extra water was emptied after soaking. Four treatments-referred to as treatments 1 (T1), 2 (T2), 3 (T3), and 4 (T4)-were created using varying ratios of millet to water. In T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, the millet to water ratios were as follows (1:2), (1:3), and (1:5). After the 200g of soaked millet was split into 4 equal portions of 50g each, water was used to grind the grain in order to prepare the various treatments. With the aid of muslin cloth, filtration was carried out following grinding. To achieve homogeneity, the extracted milk was ground for ten more minutes.

Millet Residue Energy Bar

Ghee was used to roast the leftovers from the milk extraction process. Sesame seeds and roasted peanut powder were combined with it. Cooking jaggery with water produced jaggery syrup. Fourteen percent of the residual left was jaggery. After all the ingredients were combined, the food was cooked over a medium heat. It was then given the shape of an energy bar.

Proximate Composition

Moisture content of products was determined using AOAC (1990) and IS-2785-1975. Ash content was determined by IS:SP 18 (Part IX) 1981. Crude fibre was determined using the method used by Madu et al., (2021) [8] . Fat content was determined by using IS 1224-2 (1997) and AOAC 2000. Protein content was determined using method used by Markwell et al., (1978) [9] . Total carbohydrate content was determined using AOAC 1990.

Statistical Analysis

Three parallel replicates were used to obtain the mean and standard deviation. Values are expressed as Mean ± SD of three determinations. S/NS shows whether treatments differ significantly or non-significantly statistically at p<0.05 from control. 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). Microsoft Excel's Completely Randomized Design (CRD) tool was used for all of the analysis. For every aspect in the sensory evaluation, an ANOVA was calculated to ascertain the significance (Johnson, 1972).

Results and Discussions Millet Milk

The results indicate that the moisture content of foxtail millet milk of different treatments (T1-T4) ranged from 83.4±0.3 to 87.7±0.3. The moisture content of barnyard millet milk of different treatments (T1-T4) ranged from 84.4±0.2 to 87.5±0.3. The moisture content of finger millet milk of different treatments ranged from 84.6±0.1 to 89.0±0.2. Control milk (cow milk) was having moisture content 84.6±0.2. The results obtained are similar to cow milk moisture content (85.98±0.02%) as reported by Dhankhar et al., (2019) [4] . The results indicate that protein content of foxtail millet milk of different treatments (T1 to T4) ranged from 6.1±1.4% to 4.9±1.4%. The protein content of barnyard millet milk of different treatments (T1 to T4) ranged from 7.7±1.9% to 5.1±1.2%. The protein content of finger millet milk of different treatments (T1 to T4) ranged from 7.0±1.8% to 5.0±1.4%. The protein content of cow milk (control, T0) was 3.0±0.1% similar to cow milk protein (3.24±0.03%) as reported by Kundu et al., (2018) [7] . The fat content of foxtail millet milk for different treatments (T1-T4) ranged from 0.06±0.02% to 0.3±0.05%. The fat content of barnyard millet milk for different treatments (T1-T4) ranged from 0.2±0.05% to 0.5±0.05%. The fat content of finger millet milk for different treatments (T1-T4) ranged from 0.3±0.05% to 0.5±0.05%. The fat content of control group (cow milk, T0) was obtained 3.8±0.2% similar to fat content (4.3±0.006%) obtained by Dhankhar et al., (2019) [4] . The ash content in different treatments (T1-T4) of foxtail millet milk ranged from 0.1±0.05% to 0.5±0.05%. The ash content in different treatments (T1-T4) of barnyard millet milk ranged from 0.7±0.1% to 0.5±0.05%. The ash content in different treatments (T1-T4) of finger millet milk ranged from 0.06±0.02% to 0.5±0.1%. The ash content of control group (cow milk, T0) was 0.6±0.05. The obtained results are in line with the findings of Dhankhar et al., (2019) [4] and Punniyamoorthy, (2018) [12] . The crude fibre content in different treatments (T1-T4) of foxtail millet milk ranged from 0.4±0.1% to 1.6±0.2%. The crude fibre content in different treatments (T1-T4) of barnyard millet milk ranged from 0.2±0.1% to 1.3±0.05%. The crude fibre content in different treatments (T1-T4) of finger millet milk ranged from 0.1±0.05% to 0.9±0.1%. The crude fibre content in control group (cow milk, T0) was 0.5±0.1. The carbohydrate content of different treatments (T1-T4) of foxtail millet milk ranged from 5.9±0.1% to 9.2±0.1%. The carbohydrate content of different treatments (T1-T4) of barnyard millet milk ranged from 4.1±0.1% to 6.5±0.05%. The carbohydrate content of different treatments (T1-T4) of finger millet milk ranged from 4.0±0.05% to 7.2±0.1%. Control group (cow milk, T0) carbohydrate content was 4.9±0.1 which was similar (4.81%) to result reported by Antunes et al., (2023) [1] .

Conclusion

For people with lactose intolerance who are unable to consume dairy milk or its derivatives, millet milk is a great substitute. It was discovered that people could tolerate the created millet milk and its byproducts. Most of the nutrients in millet milk was in comparable amount to the dairy milk. The millet residue bar was also a good idea for handling food waste. It increased the value of millet residue and also made a good use of it.

References

1. Antunes IC, Bexiga R, Pinto C, Roseiro LC, Quaresma MAG. Cow's milk in human nutrition and the emergence of plant-based milk alternatives. Foods. 2023;12(1):1-99.
2. Arora L, Aggarwal R, Dhaliwal I, Gupta OP, Kaushik P. Assessment of sensory and nutritional attributes of foxtail millet-based food products. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1146545-1146545.
3. Das A, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R. Cereal based functional food of Indian subcontinent: A review. J Food Sci Technol. 2012;49(6):665-672.
4. Dhankhar J, Kundu P, Mehla R. Preparation and physicochemical evaluation of dairy free alternative based on coconut and millet milk. Int J Pharm Biol Sci. 2019;9(1):1-9.
5. 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;245(7):1519-1531.
6. 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;110:4251.
7. Kundu P, Dhankhar J, Sharma A. Development of non dairy milk alternative using soymilk and almond milk. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci. 2018;6(1):203-210.
8. Madu PP, Okpara PM, Shuaibu PB, Isah P, Ubana PM. Physical and proximate compositions of selected milk products in Abuja and Keffi metropolis, Nigeria. Int J Innov Sci Eng Technol. 2021;8:1.
9. Markwell MAK, Haas SM, Bieber LL, Tolbert NE. A modification of the Lowry procedure to simplify protein determination in membrane and lipoprotein samples. Anal Biochem. 1978;87(1):206-210.
10. Messina V, Mangels AR. Considerations in planning vegan diets: Children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101(6):661-669.
11. 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;63(2):1261-1267.
12. 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;15:106-115.
13. Sethi S, Tyagi SK, Anurag RK. Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: A review. J Food Sci Technol. 2016;53(9):3408-3408.
14. Singh E, Singh E. Potential of millets: Nutrients composition and health benefits. J Sci Innov Res. 2016;5(2):46-50.