hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305

Obogaćivanje kefira vlaknima jabuke i limuna

Busra Goncu ; Harran University Engineering Faculty, Department of Food Engineering, Şanliurfa, Turkey, 63040
Asli Celikel ; Harran University Engineering Faculty, Department of Food Engineering, Şanliurfa, Turkey, 63040
Mutlu B. Guler-Akin ; Harran University Engineering Faculty, Department of Food Engineering, Şanliurfa, Turkey, 63040
M. Serdar Akin ; Harran University Agricultural Faculty, Department of Food Engineering, Şanliurfa, Turkey, 63040

Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (540 KB) str. 208-216 preuzimanja: 533* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Goncu, B., Celikel, A., Guler-Akin, M.B. i Serdar Akin, M. (2017). Some properties of kefir enriched with apple and lemon fiber. Mljekarstvo, 67 (3), 208-216. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305
MLA 8th Edition
Goncu, Busra, et al. "Some properties of kefir enriched with apple and lemon fiber." Mljekarstvo, vol. 67, br. 3, 2017, str. 208-216. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305. Citirano 21.01.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition
Goncu, Busra, Asli Celikel, Mutlu B. Guler-Akin i M. Serdar Akin. "Some properties of kefir enriched with apple and lemon fiber." Mljekarstvo 67, br. 3 (2017): 208-216. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305
Harvard
Goncu, B., et al. (2017). 'Some properties of kefir enriched with apple and lemon fiber', Mljekarstvo, 67(3), str. 208-216. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305
Vancouver
Goncu B, Celikel A, Guler-Akin MB, Serdar Akin M. Some properties of kefir enriched with apple and lemon fiber. Mljekarstvo [Internet]. 2017 [pristupljeno 21.01.2020.];67(3):208-216. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305
IEEE
B. Goncu, A. Celikel, M.B. Guler-Akin i M. Serdar Akin, "Some properties of kefir enriched with apple and lemon fiber", Mljekarstvo, vol.67, br. 3, str. 208-216, 2017. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15567/mljekarstvo.2017.0305

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Istražen je utjecaj dodatka vlakana jabuke i limuna na neka svojstva kefira. U tu svrhu proizvedeno je pet različitih kefira (A je kontrolni, B, C, D, E, F i G: sadrže 0,25 % jabučnih vlakana, 0,5 % jabučnih vlakana, 1 % jabučnih vlakana, 0,25 % limunskih vlakana, 0,5% limunskih vlakana i 1 % limunskih vlakana), koji su bili pohranjeni 20 dana na 4±1 °C. pH, titriracijska kiselost, suha tvar, aktivnost vode, kapacitet zadržavanja vode, viskoznost, L, a i b vrijednosti, senzorska analiza, ukupni broj bakterija mliječne kiseline, Lactococcus spp., Leuconostoc spp. i broj kvasaca u kefiru određeni su 1., 10. i 20. dana skladištenja. Dobiveni rezultati upućuju na to da dodatak vlakana jabuke i limuna poboljšava reološka, mikrobiološka i senzorska svojstva kefira (p<0,01), te da se vlakna jabuke i limuna mogu koristiti za proizvodnju kefira do udjela od 0,25 % ili 0,5 %.

Ključne riječi
kefir; jabučna vlakna; limunska vlakna; kvaliteta

Hrčak ID: 183626

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/183626

▼ Article Information



Introduction

Kefir is a fermented and carbonated refreshing milk, with a slightly acidic aromatic taste and creamy foam composition which contains yeasts and many bacterial species from genus Lactobacillus, Leuconstoc, Lactococcus and acetic acid bacteria (Chifiriuc et al., 2011). Besides milk ingredients such as proteins, fat and lactose, it also contains small amounts of lactic acid, ethanol, carbon dioxide, acetic acid, acetaldehyde, acetoin and diacetyl, influencing its flavour and odour (Gronnevik et al., 2011; Glibowski and Zielinska, 2015).

The main raw material applied in kefir production is bovine milk; however, kefir can also be produced from caprine or ovine milk (Wszolek et al., 2001; Tratnik et al., 2006; Grzegorczyk and Wszołek, 2010). As well as different kinds of milk, different additives, such as skim milk powder (SMP), whey protein concentrate (Tratnik et al., 2006) and inulin (Tratnik et al., 2006; Ertekin and Guzel-Seydim, 2010; Glibowski and Kowalska, 2012; Montanuci et al., 2012;Glibowski and Zielinska, 2015) were studied for kefir production. Usually, the addition of the above mentioned substances caused a change of rheological parameters.

Consumers are demanding for foods with increasingly properties, such as pleasant flavor, low-calorie value or low-fat content and beneficial health effects (Gonzalez-Tomas et al., 2008). Dietary fiber (DF) is a remnant of the edible part of plant; it is analogous carbohydrates that are resistant to digestion and absorption in the human small intestine and undergo complete or partial fermentation in the human large intestine. DF includes oligosaccharides, lignin, resistant starch, tannins and associated plant substances. The significant physicochemical properties of DF include solubility, viscosity, water holding capacity and fermentability (Elleuch et al., 2011; Mudgil and Barak, 2013). DF plays an important role in human health. High DF diets are associated with the prevention, reduction and treatment of some diseases, such as diverticular and coronary heart diseases. This has prompted efforts to add DF into food products (Tungland and Meyer, 2002). Recently, DFs have been commonly used in various food products such as yoghurt, ice cream, beverages, pasta, biscuits, and bread (Dello Staffolo et al., 2004; Dervisoglu and Yazici, 2006; Akin, 2005; Akin, Akin and Kirmaci, 2007; Brennan et al., 2008; Sendra et al., 2008; Soukoulis et al., 2009; Gularte et al., 2012; Agama-Acevedo et al., 2012; Paquet et al., 2014; De Lima et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2015).

The by-products of fruits from industrial applications are potential sources of DF that can be incorporated into food products. The processing of apples, in particular for apple juice, generates the by-product apple pomace, which consists of a heterogeneous mixture of peel, seeds, calyx, stem and pulp. Apple pomace can represent 20-40 % of the weight of processed fruits, depending on the technology used in the extraction of juice (Macagnan et al., 2015). Lemon is the third most important Citrus species in the World and is mainly processed into fruit juice. Lemon pomace accounts for 50-65 g per 100 g whole fruit mass, there is a great interest in utilizing the remaining biomass. DF was the major constituents (77.34-81.71 %) in dried lemon by-products (Marin et al., 2007).

Therefore, to use these widely available and low cost fiber sources in human nutrition, elucidating their potential physiological and metabolic actions is fundamental. Thus, it was aimed to develop a functional product containing apple fiber (AF) and lemon fiber (LF). In an attempt to improve the nutritional value of kefir different levels of AF and LF were added to the batches. Furthermore, the effects of apple and lemon fiber levels on the physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory properties of kefir were also examined.

Materials and methods

Materials

Cow’s milk was supplied from Animal Husbandry unit of the Faculty Agriculture, Harran University. The chemical composition of milk used for the production of kefir fell within the following averages: titratable acidity 0.160 % (±0.02) as lactic acid (L.A.), pH 6.68 (±0.015), dry matter 11.73 %(±0.08), fat 3.1 % (±0.03), protein 3.35 % (±0.05), lactose 4.58 % (±0.04) and ash 0.75 % (±0.015). Kefir grains were obtained by Professor Celalettin Koçak (Ankara University, Department of Dairy Science and Technology, Ankara, Turkey). Kefir starter culture was prepared by inoculating 10 g of kefir grains into 1000 mL of pasteurized skimmed milk and then incubated at 25 °C for 22 hours until pH fell to 4.7. That kefir was used as kefir starter culture, which contains 10.35 log cfu/g Lactic acid bacteria and lactococci, 7.88 log cfu/g Leuconostoc and 6.05 log cfu/g yeast.

AF and LF were obtained from Arosel Food (İstanbul). The gross composition of apple and lemon fiber claimed by the manufacturer is; dietary fiber 70-80 % of which 10 % is soluble, moisture 12 % and fibre 90 %, moisture 10 %, fat 1 %, protein 5 %, carbohydrate 1 % and salt 1.3 %, respectively. The fibers are 100 % apple fiber and citrus fiber. L, a and b values of AF and LF were 58.61, 8.25, 18.21 and 83.05, 0.12 and 11.56, respectively. All of the other used reagents were of analytical grade.

Kefir manufacture

Raw whole cow’s milk divided seven parts of 10 L batches. The first batch was control (A). The other batches supplemented with 0.25, 0.5 and 1 % AF and LF (B: 0.25 % AF, C: 0.5 % AF, D: 1 % AF, E: 0.25 % LF, F: 0.5 % LF and G: 1 % LF), respectively. Each milk was pasteurized at 90 °C and kept for 5 min by using a batch type pasteurizer with water jacket vat and cooled to 25 °C in 2-3 min. The process of the fermentation of milk to be processed was initiated by the addition of kefir starter culture at an amount of 10 mL L-1 milk, and incubation was carried out at 25 °C for 22 hours until pH reached to 4.7. Then kefir samples were cooled to 4 °C and stored in glass jars (1 L) at 4 °C for 20 days. The experiment was conducted in duplicate (totally 14 kefir samples were analysed).

Chemical analysis

The pH of the milk and kefir was measured using a digital pH-meter and titratable acidity was measured by titrating 10 g of sample with 0.1 N NaOH using phenolphthalein indicator (Guler-Akin and Akin 2007). The fat and lactose contents of milk were determined by the Gerber method (T.S.E. 1994) and spectrophotometric (Lawrance, 1968) methods, respectively. The protein, moisture and ash contents of milk were estimated from the crude nitrogen content of the samples determined by the Kjeldahl, oven-drying and gravimetric methods, respectively (AOAC, 1990). The water activity of the kefirs was measured using a water activity meter at 25 °C (HygroPalmAW1; Rotronic ag, Bassersdorf, Switzerland).

Physical measurements

The viscosities of the kefirs were determined at 4 °C using a digital Brookfield Viscometer, Model DV-II (Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Stoughton, MA, USA) (Akin et al., 2007).

Water-holding capacity of kefir was determined using a centrifuge (Mudgil et al., 2016). 10g of kefir (X) sample was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 20 min at 4 °C. The whey (Y) separated was removed and weighed. The water-holding capacity was calculated as.

Water Holding Capacity (%) = [(X-Y)/X] x100)

Color measurements

A reflectance colorimeter (Color Quest XE, USA) was used to determine Hunter L, a and b color parameters of the kefir samples. The source of light and the observation angle are D65 and 10°.

Microbiological enumerations

Kefir samples (10 g) were decimally diluted in 100 mL sterile peptone water (0.1 %) and 1 mL aliquot dilutions were poured onto plates in triplicate. Lactococcus spp. counts were determined in M17-lactose agar (Difco®), followed by incubation under aerobic condition at 30 °C for 48 hours (Garcia Fontan et al., 2006). Leuconostoc spp. counts were determined on APT agar (Merck®) supplemented with sucrose (100 g L-1) and 0.005 % of sodium azide, and it was incubated under aerobic condition at 22 °C for 4 days (Montanuci et al., 2012). Total lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were enumerated on MRS agar (Merck®) and incubated under aerobic condition at 30 °C for 48 hours (Garrote; Abraham; De Antoni, 2001).

Yeast count was determined on YGC agar (yeast extract glucose chloramphenicol agar). The medium was acidified to pH 3.5 by adding a sterile (Millipore 0.45 μm membrane filter) 10 % tartaric acid (w/v) solution. Incubation was performed aerobically at 25 °C for 5 days (Montanuci et al., 2012).

Sensory evaluation

The samples were organoleptically assessed by untrained ten panelists using a 10 point hedonic scale as described by Bodyfelt et al. (1988). The properties evaluated included flavour and taste, consistency and general acceptability (1 = strongly unacceptable, 10 = very good). The panel of assessors was an external panel (consisted of staff from the Harran University Department of Food Engineering, Turkey) of non-smokers who were very familiar with dairy products and were checked on the basis of sensory acuity and consistency.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of data via one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to check the significance of differences at p<0.01 using SPSS Version5.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). Statistically different groups were determined by the LSD (Least Significant Difference) test (Düzgünes et al., 1987).

Results and discussions

Physicochemical properties

The effect of fiber type and fiber level on the pH, titratable acidity and dry matter of kefir was significant (p<0.01) (Table 1). Control sample had the lowest dry matter content because it had not been fortified with DF. There are no differences statistically between the samples AF and LF according to their dry matter. The dry matter of kefirs slightly increased as the DF content increased. Storage did not affect the dry matter content of the samples (p>0.05).

The pH of the samples was ranged between 4.26 and 4.65. Addition of DF caused to the decrease of pH values and increase of the acidity and dry matter content of kefirs. The results indicate that AF added kefir samples had the lowest pH and the highest acidity contents. We concluded that AF had more improvement effect on the lactic acid bacteria than LF. pH decreased and the acidity increased as the fiber rate increased up to at a rate of 0.5 %. It could be related to stimulation of lactic acid bacteria by fiber. Previous studies have also demonstrated that kefir as a probiotic (Van Wyk, 2001; Chifiriuc et al., 2011) and dietary fiber had a potential prebiotic effect (Ferliarslan, 2012; Guzeler et al., 2010). However, addition of 1 % fiber increased the pH values and decreased the acidity content of all samples. The result of that study could be related to lower water activity (aw) of kefir samples enriched with 1% AF and LF. As known, DF had very high water holding capacity (Figuerola et al., 2005; Macagnan et al., 2015). So the lactic acid bacteria couldn’t find enough water for growing or producing lactic acid. Lactic acid bacteria in kefir culture need 0.95-1 water activity (Ayhan, 2000). Aw of kefir samples supplied with 1 % DF was under 0.95 (Table 1). As expected, the storage time significantly affected the level of acidity in the samples (p<0.01), titratable acidity contents increased, while the pH decreased due to the catabolism of lactose. Glibowski and Zielinska (2015) reported that pH of kefirs decreased during storage. However, Gronnevik et al. (2011) noticed substantial decrease in pH values of kefirs during the first week with no further changes for the next 3 weeks of storage.

Table 1. Physicochemical properties of kefir samples (n=2)

Sample

Storage period (day)

Dry matter (%)

pH

Titratable acidity (%L.A.)

Water activity

Viscosity

(mPa.s)

Water holding capacity

(%)

Control

1.

12.34±0.23d

4.65±0.02a1

0.68±0.009k3

0.99±0.01a

0.673±0.01h2

35.73±0.32n3

10.

12.36±0.06d

4.56±0.01c2

0.78±0.01h2

0.99±0.005a

0.794±0.01g1

37.37±0.77m2

20.

12.33±0.3d

4.48±0.01d3

0.87±0.006g1

0.99±0.0a

0.807±0.01g1

38.46±1.24l1

0.25 % AF

1.

12.61±0.07c

4.61±0.01b1

0.76±0.013i3

0.96±0.01d

0.990±0.01e3

41.56±0.32k3

10.

12.62±0.31c

4.38±0.06f2

0.96±0.028v

0.96±0.005d

1.295±0.02c2

46.57±0.44i2

20.

12.65±0.03c

4.29±0.01g3

1.21±0.004b1

0.96±0.003d

1.400±0.01b1

49.20±0.52g1

0.5 % AF

1.

12.84±0.12b

4.60±0.02b1

0.78±0.02h3

0.95±0.001e

1.025±0.03e3

43.23±0.93j3

10.

12.86±0.06b

4.36±0.06f2

0.98±0.02e2

0.95±0.002e

1.330±0.05c2

50.47±1.53f2

20.

12.85±0.1b

4.26±0.04h3

1.29±0.09a1

0.95±0.01e

1.432±0.01a1

55.15±0.36d1

1 % AF

1.

13.10±0.15a

4.63±0.01a1

0.72±0.004j3

0.93±0.002g

1.054±0.01e3

48.54±0.38g3

10.

13.11±0.04a

4.48±0.01d2

0.86±0.013g2

0.93±0.003g

1.380±0.03b2

56.83±0.39c2

20.

13.12±0.14a

4.35±0.02f3

1.10±0.006d1

0.93±0.009g

1.471±0.01a1

60.47±0.39a1

0.25 % LF

1.

12.57±0.16c

4.61±0b1

0.76±0.035i3

0.98±0.004b

9.73±0.02f3

40.74±0.33k3

10.

12.55±0.04c

4.45±0.01e2

0.92±0.007f2

0.98±0.004b

1.241±0.03d2

45.95±0.23i2

20.

12.58±0.22c

4.32±0.01g3

1.15±0.007c1

0.98±0.005b

1.374±0.03b1

48.11±0.40h1

0.5 % LF

1.

12.85±0.21b

4.60±0.03b1

0.80±0.05h3

0.97±0.003c

1.018±0.04e3

42.84±0.27j3

10.

12.85±0.11b

4.43±0.04e2

0.90±0.02f2

0.97±0.005c

1.300±0.15c2

49.80±0.15f2

20.

12.84±0.03b

4.29±0.04g3

1.19±0.04b1

0.97±0.001c

1.403±0.20b1

54.29±0.29e1

1 % LF

1.

13.12±0.12a

4.64±0.0a1

0.70±0.002j3

0.94±0.005f

1.027±0.02e3

46.52±0.4i3

10.

13.11±0.2a

4.49±0.01d2

0.85±0.013g2

0.94±0.008f

1.352±0.03b2

54.27±0.39e2

20.

13.14±0.09a

4.36±0.02f3

1.08±0.022d1

0.94±0.007f

1.435±0.03a1

58.46±0.44b1

a-c/1-3Means in the same column followed by different letters were significantly different according to fiber and different numbers were significantly different according to storage period (p < 0.01).

AF: Apple fiber, LF: Lemon fiber

The water activity values of kefir samples were between 0.93-0.99. Control samples had the highest aw. Addition of DF reduced aw of kefirs due to the being highly hygroscopic and water binding capacity of DF. According to our result binding water of AF is slightly higher than the LF. Fiber concentration affected aw negatively (p<0.01). The result of this is that the water molecules become immobilized and unable to move freely among other molecules of the kefirs enriched with DF. Storage did not affect aw of the samples (p> 0.05).

The viscosity of the kefir samples fortified with DF was higher than control sample. The increased viscosity of the fiber-enriched kefir seems to be caused both by the contribution of the soluble matter to the composition of the aqueous phase and by the contribution of insoluble fibers to the increase of total solids (Soukolis et al., 2009), affecting the three dimensional conformation of the hydrated biopolymers. However, Ertekin and Guzel-Seydim (2010) and Glibowski and Zielinska (2015) reported that addition of inulin, which is soluble fiber, reduced the viscosity of kefir. The samples enriched with AF had the highest viscosity value. It could be related the higher soluble and insoluble fiber and pectin content of AF. The significant content of soluble matter in pectin of AF, which is well known for its gel-forming ability (Macagnan et al., 2015), can explain the intense enhancement of viscosity, greater than the other samples. Viscosity values significantly increased with increasing the fiber levels. This can be explained by the interactions of the DF and liquid components of kefir. DF, being highly hygroscopic, would bind water (Elleuch et al., 2011; Mudgil and Barak, 2013).

Water holding capacity of a product, such as yoghurt or kefir, is its tendency to retain water or its resistance towards phase separation of the product. The kefirs made with DF showed a significantly higher level water holding capacity (p<0.01) than control. It could be related to the synergistic effect of both soluble and insoluble fibers. Fiber may act as a stabilizer due to its capacity for binding water (Elleuch et al., 2011; Mudgil and Barak, 2013). The samples enriched with AF had slightly higher water holding capacity than the sample supplied with LF, due to the probably higher water holding capacity of AF. Macagnan et al (2015) determined that the faeces moisture content of rats feed with apple pomace was higher than the faeces moisture content of rats feed with orange bassage. Water holding capacity of kefirs increased as the fiber rate increased (p<0.05). Viscosity and water holding capacity of kefirs increased continuously throughout storage period in a similar way for all the samples (p<0.01).

Color properties

The fiber type and level significantly affected the L, a, b and C values of kefirs (p<0.01). Lightness (L) values of kefir samples were closer but with AF were significantly lower than the other samples (Table 2). All samples except AF had negative a (greenness) values. The lowest b value was obtained in control samples whereas the highest was obtained in LF added samples. The samples fortified AF had the lowest C values and followed by LF and control samples, respectively. The increase in the concentration of fiber diminished to lightness, contributed to the red color, yellow color and C values of the samples. L, a, b and C values didn’t change during storage (p>0.05).

Table 2. Color properties of kefir samples (n=2)
Sample Storage period (day) L a b C
Control 1. 78.87±0.37a -1.53±0.05g1 9.17± 0.01h3 7.64±0.06h
10. 78.85± 0.15a -1.52±0.02g 9.21± 0.0h 7.69±0.02g
20. 78.86± 0.1a -1.55±0.05g 9.19± 0.01h 7.64±0.04h
0.25 % AF 1. 71.93±0.21e 0.49±0.02c 10.58±0.02f 11.07±0.0c
10. 71.91±0.43e 0.50±0.01c 10.59±0.0f 11.09±0.01c
20. 71.89±0.09e 0.50±0.02c 10.58±0.01f 11.08±0.01c
0.5 % AF 1. 70.16±0.31f 0.79±0.01b 10.59±0.0f 11.38±0.01b
10. 70.09±0.09f 0.80±0.02b 10.59±0.01f 11.39±0.01b
20. 70.11±0.15f 0.80±0.01b 10.57±0.0f 11.37±0.01b
1 % AF 1. 67.25± 0.44g 1.44± 0.06a 10.60± 0.01e 12.04±0.07a
10. 67.23±0.23g 1.46±0.0a 10.60±0.0e 12.06±0.0a
20. 67.23±0.11g 1.45±0.01a 10.61±0.02e 12.06±0.03a
0.25 % LF 1. 77.87±0.14b -0.88±0.03f 11.30±0.01d 10.42±0.02f
10. 77.89±0.35b -0.89±0.02f 11.31±0.01d 10.42±0.03f
20. 77.87±0.19b -0.89±0.0f 11.30±0.0d 10.41±0.0f
0.5 % LF 1. 76.24±0.21c -0.80±0.01e 11.45±0.01c 10.65±0.0e
10. 76.25±0.14c -0.81±0.01e 11.45±0.02c 10.64±0.01e
20. 76.24±0.37c -0.80±0.0e 11.44±0.0c 10.64±0.0e
1 % LF 1. 75.26± 0.18d -0.72± 0.01d 11.61± 0.01a 10.89±0.02d
10. 75.25±0.03d -0.73±0.0d 11.62±0.0a 10.89±0.0d
20. 75.25± 0.1d -0.72± 0.01d 11.60± 0.02a 10.88±0.01d

a-cMeans in the same column followed by different letters were significantly different (p < 0.01). AF: Apple fiber, LF: Lemon fiber

Microbiological counts

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) counts were between 9.79-10.89 log cfu mL-1 during storage time (Table 3). The number of LABwere found to be higher in the DF added samples than the control samples (p<0.01). This could be due to the stimulated growth of lactic acid bacteria by DF. The effects of fiber type on the lactic acid bacteria counts of kefir were negligible (p>0.05). However, the samples enriched with AF had slightly higher bacterial counts than the samples enriched with LF. Bacterial counts of kefir increased slowly up to at a rate of 0.5 % DF addition, and decreased at a rate of 1 % DF addition. The result of this could be attributed to lower water activity (aw) of kefir samples enriched with 1 % DF. About a 0.5 log cycle reduction was observed during the storage.

Lactococcus spp. counts were between 9.79-10.88 log cfu mL-1 during storage time (Fig 2). Addition of DF didn’t influenced Lactococcus spp. counts of kefir (p>0.05). Montanuci et al. (2012) also reported that addition of inulin did not affect Lactococcus spp. counts of kefir. The samples fortified with AF had slightly higher Lactococcus spp. counts than the other samples. Lactococcus spp. counts increased as the DF increased up to at a rate of 0.5 %, then it reduced. During storage Lactococcus spp. counts reduced about a 0.8 log cycle due to the high acidity of kefir. Garrote et al. (1998) and Magra et al. (2012) reported that the lactococci in kefir were sensitive to low pH.

Addition of DF, fiber type and fiber rate did not change the Leuconostoc spp. and the yeast (Table 3) of kefir samples (p>0.05). Similar results were reported by Ertekin and Guzel-Seydim (2010) and Montanuci et al. (2012) for inulin added kefirs. Leuconostoc spp. and yeast counts increased about 1.5 log cycle during the storage period. Montanuci et al. (2012) reported that yeast and Leuconostoc counts increased during storage due to the metabolism of lactose by Leuconostoc.

Table 3. Microbiological contents of kefir samples (log cfu/mL) (n=2)
Samples Storage period (day) Lactic acid bacteria counts Lactococcus spp. counts Leuconostoc spp. counts Yeast counts
Control 1. 10.23±0.41c1 10.53±0.961 7.78±0.28c2 6.09±0.0c2
10. 9.97±0.57c2 10.19±0.622 8.14±0.38b1 7.39±51a1
20. 9.61±0.84c2 9.79±0.533 8.35±0.71a1 7.59±0.24a1
0.25 % AF 1. 11.15±0.88a1 10.78±0.491 7.80±0.66c2 6.02±0.37c2
10. 10.71±0.92b2 10.36±0.622 8.17±0.44b1 7.35±0.80b1
20. 10.67±0.56b2 9.88±0.873 8.38±0.59a1 7.60±0.61a1
0.5 % AF 1. 11.25±0.77a1 10.89±0.991 7.79±0.61c3 6.12±0.29c2
10. 10.99±0.45a2 10.31±0.582 8.13±0.28b2 7.39±0.86a1
20. 10.73±0.63b2 9.95±0.773 8.41±0.18a1 7.63±0.44a1
1 % AF 1. 11.00±0.84a1 10.60±0.861 7.81±0.36c3 6.01±0.78c2
10. 10.58±0.96b2 10.19±0.792 8.13±0.49b2 7.37±0.69a1
20. 10.49±0.39b2 9.81±0.633 8.35±0.72a1 7.53±0.77a1
0.25 % LF 1. 11.03±0.87a1 10.66±0.351 7.78±0.82c3 6.10±0.41c3
10. 10.59±0.94b2 10.33±0.292 8.15±0.59b2 7.36±0.50a2
20. 10.46±0.59b2 9.83±0.463 8.38±0.60a1 7.57±0.64a1
0.5 % LF 1. 11.02±0.65a1 10.63±0.881 7.75±0.46c3 6.09±0.58c3
10. 10.78±0.55b2 10.21±0.292 8.16±0.82b1 7.27±0.41b2
20. 10.54±0.48b2 9.85±0.433 8.34±0.77a1 7.63±0.83a1
1 % LF 1. 10.73±0.34b1 10.44±0.811 7.82±0.46c3 6.02±0.77c2
10. 10.25±0.74c2 10.11±0.682 8.12±0.66b2 7.35±0.62b1
20. 10.25±0.55c2 9.82±0.523 8.36±0.38a1 7.55±0.29a1

a-c/1-3Means in the same column followed by different letters were significantly different according to fiber and different numbers were significantly different according to storage period (p<0.01).

AF: Apple fiber, LF: Lemon fiber

Sensory properties of kefir samples (a) 1st day. (b) 10th day (c) 20th days of storage period

(a)

mljekarstvo_67_208_g1.png

(b)

mljekarstvo_67_208_g2.png

(c)

mljekarstvo_67_208_g3.png
Sensory evaluations

Addition of DF had significant effect on the sensory characteristics (Figure 1) of kefirs (p<0.01). 0.5 % AF added kefirs had the highest sensory scores and 1 % LF added kefirs had the lowest sensory scores. While Ertekin and Guzel-Seydim (2010) and Glibowski and Kowalska (2012) reported that addition of inulin had no effect on sensory properties of kefir, Tratnik et al. (2006) and Glibowski and Zielinska (2015) had reported that addition of inulin had negative effect on the taste of kefir. In this study, DF addition positively influenced taste and aroma, consistency and general acceptability scores up to at a rate of 0.5 %, because of better mouth thickness and pleasant aroma of them. The higher fiber concentration (1 %) caused the lower sensory scores. It could be related to the insoluble parts of the AF and LFs. The all sensory scores of the samples increased during storage for up to 10 days, and then decreased. This could be associated with development of acidity and decreases in aroma compounds (such as acetaldehyde) contents of the samples during storage.

Conclusion

The enrichment of kefir with DF is an effective way to enhance physiological aspects of the final product. Addition of DF led to improvement of the physical, microbiological and sensory properties of kefir depending on the rate of DF. Addition of DF up to 0.5 % positively affected viscosity, LAB, Lactococcus spp. counts and sensory properties of kefir. Usage of DF at a rate of 1 % had negatively affected aw, color (L, a, b), LAB, Lactococcus spp. counts and sensory properties of kefir. Results showed that AF and LF can be used successfully in the production of kefir at a rate of 0.25 % or 0.5 %.

References

1 

Agama-Acevedo E.; Islas-Hernandez J.J.; Pacheco-Vargas G.; Osorio-Diaz P.; Bello-Perez L.A. (2012): Starch digestibility and glycemic index of cookies partially substituted with unripe banana flour. LWT - Food Science and Technology 46, 177-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.10.010

2 

Akin M.B., Akin M.S., Kirmaci Z. (2007): Effects of inulin and sugar levels on the viability of yogurt and probiotic bacteria and the physical and sensory characteristics in probiotic ice cream. Food Chemistry 104 (1), 93-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.11.030

3 

Akin M.S. (2005): Effects of inulin and different sugar levels on viability of probiotic bacteria and the physical and sensory characteristics of probiotic fermented ice-cream. Milchwissenschaft 60 (3), 297-301.

4 

AOAC (1990): Official methods of analysis . (15th ed.). Arlington: A. Press.

5 

Ayhan K. (2000): Gıdalarda Bulunan Mikroorganizmalar. In: Gıda Mikrobiyolojisi ve Uygulamaları. Ankara: Sim Matbaacılık Ltd. Sti.

6 

Bodyfelt F.W., Tobias J., Trout G.M. (1988): The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. New York.

7 

Brennan C.S., Tobias J., Trout G.M. (2005): The potential use of cereal (1-3,1-4)-β-D-glucans as functional food ingredients. Journal of Cereal Science 42, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2005.01.002

8 

Chifiriuc M.C., Cioaca A.B., Lazar V. (2011): In vitro assay of the antimicrobial activity of kefir against bacterial and fungal strains. Anaerobe 17, 433-435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.04.020

9 

De Lima A.C.S., Soares D.J., Da Silva L.M.R., De Figueiredo R.W., De Sousa P.H.M., De Abreu E. (2014): In vitro bioaccessibility of copper, iron, zinc and antioxidant compounds of whole cashew apple juice and cashew apple fiber (Anacardium occidentale L.) following simulated gastro-intestinal digestion. Food Chemistry 161, 142-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.03.123

10 

Dello Staffolo M., Bertola N., Martino M., Bevilaqcua A. (2004): Influence of dietary fiber addition on sensory and rheological properties of yogurt. International Dairy Journal 14, 263-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2003.08.004

11 

Dervisoglu M., Yazici F. (2006): The effect of citrus fiber on the physical, chemical and sensory properties of ice cream. Food Science and Technology International 12, 159-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013206064005

12 

Düzgüneş O., Kesici T., Kavuncu O., Gürbüz F. (1987): Arastırma ve Deneme Metotları (İstatistikMetotları II). Ankara.

13 

Elleuch M., Bedigian D., Roiseux O., Besbes S., Blecker C., Attia H. (2011): Dietary fiber and fiber-rich by-products of food processing: Characterisation, technological functionality and commercial applications: A review. Food Chemistry 124 (2), 411-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.06.077

14 

Ertekin B., Guzel-Seydim Z.B. (2010): Effect of fat replacers on kefir quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90, 543-548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3855

15 

Ferliarslan İ. (2012): Farkli Oranlarda Yulaf Lifi ve İnülin İlavesinin Kayısılı Probiyotik Fermente Süt İçeceğinin Bazı Özelliklerine Etkileri. Harran Üniversitesi Fen bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gıda Mühendisliği ABD Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Ms thesis), Sanlıurfa, Turkey.

16 

Figuerola F., Hurtado M.L., Estevez A.M., Chiffelle I., Asenjo F. (2005): Fiber concentrates from apple pomace and citrus peel as potential fiber sources for food enrichment. Food Chemistry 91, 395-401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.04.036

17 

Fu J.T., Chang Y.H., Shiau S.Y. (2015): Rheological, antioxidative and sensory properties of dough and Mantou (steamed bread) enriched with lemon fiber. LWT - Food Science and Technology 61, 56-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.11.034

18 

Garcia Fontan M., Martinez S., Franco I., Carballo J. (2006): Microbiological and chemical changes during the manufacture of Kefir made from cows’ milk, using a commercial starter culture. International Dairy Journal 16 (7), 762-767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.07.004

19 

Garrote G.L., Abraham A.G., De Antoni G.L. (2001): Chemical and microbiological characterization of kefir grains. Journal of Dairy Research 68 (4), 639-652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029901005210

20 

Glibowski P., Kowalska A. (2012): Rheological, texture and sensory properties of kefir with high performance and native inulin. Journal of Food Engineering 111, 299-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.02.019

21 

Glibowski P., Zielinska E. (2015): Physicochemical and sensory properties of kefir containing inulin and oligofructose. International Journal of Dairy Technology 68, 602-607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.12234

22 

Gonzalez-Tomas L., Coll-Marques J., Costell E. (2008): Viscoelasticity of inulin- starch-based dairy systems. Influence of inulin average chain length. Food Hydrocolloids 22, 1372-1380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.08.001

23 

Gronnevik H., Falstad M., Narvhus J.A. (2011): Microbiological and chemical properties of Norwegian kefir during storage. International Dairy Journal 21, 601-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2011.01.001

24 

Grzegorczyk A., Wszołek M. (2010): The transformation of nitrogenous relationship in the cow’s milk and goat’s milk during fermentation with part of different cultures the kefir (in Polish). Acta Scientarum Polonarum Biotechnologia 9, 11-22.

25 

Gularte M.A., Hera E., Gomez M., Rosell C.M. (2012): Effect of different fibers on batter and gluten-free layer cake properties. LWT-Food Science and Technology 48, 209-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.03.015

26 

Güler-Akin M.B., Akin M.S. (2007): Effects of cysteine and different incubation temperatures on the microflora, chemical composition and sensory characteristics of bio-yogurt made from goat’s milk. Food Chemistry 100 (2), 788-793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.10.038

27 

Guzeler N., Akın M.B., Karaca O.B., Yasar K. (2010): Farklı Oranda Kayısı Lifi Kullanımının Probiyotik Yağsız Yoğurdun Özellikleri Üzerine Etkisi TÜBİTAK Projesi (No: 107O421) Sonuç Raporu, Adana.

28 

Guzel-Seydim Z., Wyffels J.T., Seydim A. (2005): Turkish kefir and kefir grains: microbial enumeration and electron microscopic observation. International Journal of Dairy Technology 58, 25-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0307.2005.00177.x

29 

Lawrence A.J. (1968): The Determination of Lactose in Milk Products. The Austarlian Journal of Dairy Technology 23, 103.

30 

Macagnan T.F., Roberto B.S., De Moura F.A., Bizzani M., Da Silva L.P. (2015): Biological properties of apple pomas, orange bassage and passion fruit peel as alternative sources of dietary fiber. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fiber 6 (1), 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcdf.2015.04.001

31 

Magra T.I., Antoniou K.D., Psomas E.I. (2012): Effect of milk fat, kéfir grain inoculum and storage time on the flow properties and microbiological characteristics of kefir. Journal of Texture Studies 43: 299-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2011.00343.x

32 

Marin F.R., Soler-Rivas C., Benavente-Garcia O., Castillo J., Pérez-Alvarez J.A. (2007): By-products from different citrus processed as a source of customized functional fibers. Food Chemistry 100, 736-741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.04.040

33 

Montanuci F.D., Pimentel T.C., Garcia S., Prudencio S.H. (2012): Effect of starter culture and inulin addition on microbial viability, texture, and chemical characteristics of whole or skim milk kefir. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 32, 850-861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-20612012005000119

34 

Mudgil D., Barak S. (2013): Composition, properties and health benefits of indigestible carbohydrate polymers as dietary fiber: a review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 61, 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.06.044

35 

Mudgil D., Barak S., Khatkar B.S. (2016): Development of functional yoghurt via soluble fiber fortification utilizing enzymatically hydrolyzed guar gum. Food Bioscience 14, 28-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2016.02.003

36 

Paquet E., Bedard A., Lemieux S., Turgeona S.L. (2014): Effects of apple juice-based beverages enriched with dietary fibers and xanthan gum on the glycemic response and appetite sensations in healthy men. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fiber 4, 39-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcdf.2014.06.008

37 

Rosi J., Rossi J. (19787): The kefir microorganisms: the lactic acid bacteria. Scienza e Tecnica Lattiero-Casearia 29, 291-305.

38 

Sendra E., Fayos P., Lario Y., Fernandez-Lopez J., Sayas-Barbera E., Perez-Alvarez J.A. (2008): Incorporation of citrus fibers in fermented milk containing probiotic bacteria. Food Microbiology 25, 13-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2007.09.003

39 

Soukoulis C., Lebesi D., Tzia C. (2009): Enrichment of ice cream with dietary fiber: Effects on rheological properties, ice crystallisation and glass transition phenomena. Food Chemistry 115, 665-671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.12.070

40 

T.S.E. (1994): Çig Süt Standardı. T.S. 1330, Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, Ankara.

41 

Toba T., Arihara K., Adachi S. (1987): Comparative study of polysaccharides from kefir grains, an encapsulated homofermentative Lactobacillus species and Lactobacillus kefir . Milchwissenschaft 42, 565-568.

42 

Tratnik Lj., Bozanic R., Herceg Z., Drglic I. (2006): The quality of plain and supplemented kefir from goat’s and cow’s milk. International Journal of Dairy Technology 59, 40-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0307.2006.00236.x

43 

Tungland B.C., Meyer D. (2002): Nondigestible oligoand polysaccharides (dietary fiber): their physiology and role in human health and food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 1, 73-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2002.tb00009.x

44 

Van Wyk J. (2001): The inhibitory activity and sensory properties of kefir, targeting the low-income African consumer market MSc. thesis University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

45 

Wszolek M., Tamime A.Y., Muirs D.D., Barclay M.N.I. (2001): Properties of kefir made in Scotland and Poland using bovine, caprine and ovine milk with different starter cultures. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie 34, 251-261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/fstl.2001.0773


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[engleski]

Posjeta: 888 *