Journals / Gıda / 2020 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 4

INVESTIGATION OF PRODUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMEMADE YOGURT BY USING A COMMERCIAL PROBIOTIC CULTURE

TİCARİ PROBİYOTİK KÜLTÜR KULLANILAN EV YAPIMI YOĞURT ÜRETİMİNİN VE ÖZELLİKLERİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI

Journal
Gıda
Pages
814–824
Publication Date
2020-06-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results obtained; level of total lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis and pH values were not significantly changed in storage time for all samples (P >0.05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, probiotic homemade yogurt was made by using a commercial probiotic culture and its quality parameters were investigated on the 1st, 5th, 10th and 15th days of storage.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results obtained; level of total lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis and pH values were not significantly changed in storage time for all samples (P >0.05).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The homemade yogurt was not highly preferred by the panellists; however, it did not show any significant difference in the evaluation compared to the other yogurts (P >0.05).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ev Yapımı Yoğurt · Probiyotik · Starter Kültür

Abstract

In this study, probiotic homemade yogurt was made by using a commercial probiotic culture and its quality parameters were investigated on the 1st, 5th, 10th and 15th days of storage. For this purpose, probiotic and non-probiotic commercial yogurts were also investigated as control groups. According to the results obtained; level of total lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis and pH values were not significantly changed in storage time for all samples (P >0.05). Any significant number of coliforms, mould or/and yeast were not observed in all samples (<10 CFU/g). Dry matter values were found similar among the milks used in yogurt makings, while fat and protein values showed difference. The homemade yogurt was not highly preferred by the panellists; however, it did not show any significant difference in the evaluation compared to the other yogurts (P >0.05).

Özet

Bu çalışmada ticari probiyotik kültür kullanılarak probiyotik ev yapımı yoğurt yapılmış ve kalite parametreleri depolamanın 1., 5., 10. ve 15. günlerinde araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla probiyotik ve probiyotik olmayan ticari yoğurtlar da kontrol grubu olarak araştırılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre; toplam laktik asit bakterisi, Lactobacillus acidophilus ve Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis ve pH değerleri, tüm numuneler için saklama süresinde önemli ölçüde değişmemiştir (P >0.05). Tüm örneklerde önemli sayıda koliform, küf ve/veya maya gözlenmemiştir (<10 KOB/g). Yoğurt yapımında kullanılan sütler arasında kuru madde değerleri benzer bulunurken; yağ ve protein değerleri farklılık göstermiştir. Ev yapımı yoğurt, panellistler tarafından çok tercih edilen olmamıştır, ancak değerlendirmede diğer yoğurtlarla kıyaslandığında önemli ölçüde farklılık göstermemiştir (P >0.05).

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZOĞLU, Ö., ŞAŞMAZER, R. Ç., ERGİNKAYA, Z., KORUKLUOĞLU, M. (2020). INVESTIGATION OF PRODUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMEMADE YOGURT BY USING A COMMERCIAL PROBIOTIC CULTURE. Gıda, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 4, 814–824. https://ajindex.com/articles/104540

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Abhisingha, M., Dumnil, J., and Pitaksutheepong, C. (2018). Selection of potential probiotic Lactobacillus with inhibitory activity against Salmonella and fecal coliform bacteria. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 10(2): 218–227. doi:10.1007/s12602-017-9304-8.
  2. Akalın, A. S., Unal, G., Dinkci, N., and Hayaloglu, A. A. (2012). Microstructural, textural, and sensory characteristics of probiotic yogurts fortified with sodium calcium caseinate or whey protein concentrate. J. Dairy Sci. 95(7): 3617–3628. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-5297.
  3. Akpinar, A., Yerlikaya, O., and Kiliç, S. (2011). Antimicrobial activity and antibiotic resistance of Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus strains isolated from Turkish homemade yoghurts. African J. Microbiol. Res. 5(6): 675–682. doi:10.5897/AJMR10.835. Anonymous (2009). Türk gıda kodeksi. Fermente süt ürünleri tebliği (2009/25). Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı. 16 Şubat 2009 tarih ve 27143 sayılı Resmî Gazete, Ankara.
  4. Aslim, B., Beyatli, Y., and Yuksekdag, Z. N. (2006). Productions and monomer compositions of exopolysaccharides by Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus strains isolated from traditional home-made yoghurts and raw milk. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 41(8): 973–979. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.01155.x. Batista, A. L. D., Silva, R., Cappato, L. P., Almada, C. N., Garcia, R. K. A., Silva, M. C., et al. (2015). Quality parameters of probiotic yogurt added to glucose oxidase compared to commercial products through microbiological, physical-chemical and metabolic activity analyses. Food Res. Int. 77: 627–635. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2015.08.017. Cruz, A. G., Castro, W. F., Faria, J. A. F., Lollo, P. C. B., Amaya-Farfán, J., Freitas, M. Q., et al. (2012). Probiotic yogurts manufactured with increased glucose oxidase levels: Postacidification, proteolytic patterns, survival of probiotic microorganisms, production of organic acid and aroma compounds. J. Dairy Sci. 95(5): 2261–2269. doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4582.
  5. Çayır, M. S., Şahan, N. (2007). Probiyotik kültür kullanılarak üretilen kayısı katkılı yoğurtların fizikokimyasal özellikleri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Gıda Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adana, Türkiye, 75 s. Çelik, H., Durak, Y., Uysal, A. (2016). Bazı ticari ve ev yapımı yoğurtlardan izole edilen laktik asit bakterilerinin antibiyotik duyarlılıkları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Fen Derg. 42(2): 149–160.
  6. Demirkaya, A.