Experimental Foods Final Lab Report

Fall 2017
Carly Harris & Christina Constantinou
Section 1: Station 3
The Objective and Subjective Effects of
Replacing Dairy Milk with Non-Dairy Milk
Alternatives
 Appendix
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………Pg 2
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………..Pg 3
Materials and Methods…………………………………………………………………………….....Pg 4
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………..……Pg 7
Discussion……………………………………………………………..……………………………..Pg 13
References……………………………………………………………..……………………………..Pg 16

1
Title

The Objective and Subjective Effects of Replacing Dairy Milk with Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives

Abstract

Cow’s milk allergies (CMA) have been prevalent in society for many years, especially in

children, and can pose an issue when it comes to reaching their nutritional needs. Food scientists

have created a variety of dairy free milk alternatives so those with cow’s milk allergies can enjoy

products typically made with cow’s milk. In order to see the effect of changing the type of milk

used in a Mixed Berry Smoothie, one control smoothie was made and compared subjectively and

objectively to three variable smoothies. The control smoothie was made with whole cow’s milk

while the three variable smoothies were made with almond milk, cashew milk, or soy milk.

Objective variables that were tested included pH, homogeneity, and a line spread test for each

smoothie. Subjective variables were tested by giving six panelists a survey with questions on the

texture and flavor for each smoothie. Results of the objective tests showed pH was the same for

all smoothies except the almond milk smoothie, all were homogeneous, and each smoothie

varied in viscosity. For the subjective tests, texture and flavor was rated differently for each

smoothie, however the control smoothie was deemed the most acceptable of them all. Overall,

changing the type of milk in a mixed berry smoothie changed more subjectively than objectively,

but still created a palatable product. Using non-dairy alternatives such as soy, almond, or cashew

milk in order to accommodate children with cow’s milk allergies is an acceptable way to make a

mixed berry smoothie.

2
Introduction

Cow’s milk allergies (CMA) are listed as one of the “Big 8” food allergies, and are most

prevalent in early childhood with an estimated 2-6% of children being affected (Crittenden,

2013). Although there is no cure, the best way to manage CMA is by eliminating dairy products

all together and this may lead to higher risk for nutritional deficiencies, such as calcium

deficiency. (Morisset et. al, 2003). Dairy can be found in many different food products such as

cheese products, baked goods, frozen desserts, etc. so the diet may become restricted. Although

fruit does not contain dairy, it is challenging to find a palatable ways to increase children’s’

consumption of fruits (even when there is no food allergy present), so adding another food

restriction can cause even more difficulties for parents/caregiver (Blanchette and Bruh, 2005).

Since CMA is so common, and often becomes a nutritional obstacle for children to overcome, it

is very important that parents and caregivers are vigilant in giving children with CMA proper

nutritional care.

Food allergies have time and time again undergone research to try and find a “cure” so that there

is no immunological response elicited upon ingestion. Despite researcher’s best efforts, replacing

cow’s milk with non-dairy alternatives is the best way to treat CMA, and there is currently no

cure for this allergy (Vandenplas et. al, 2014). Increasing fruit consumption among children has

also been a topic of research, with different interventions being implemented to see if fruit in

different forms impacted fruit consumption. One study has shown that introducing fruit

smoothies may increase fruit consumption amongst children (Blanchette et. al, 2005). This study

was conducted in order to determine if fruit smoothies would be a palatable option for those with

CMA.

3
The execution of this study utilized both objective measures along with subjective measures in

order to see the effect non-dairy milk would have on a smoothie that commonly uses cow’s milk

as an ingredient. The non-dairy alternatives were chosen because they are produced to mimic the

consistency and texture of milk while also providing comparable amounts of calcium per cup.

Testing each smoothie for pH, homogeneity, and conducting a line spread test was the most

effective ways to see how the change in milk product would affect the chemistry between the

ingredients in the final product. The subjective testing was done in order to provide insight into

how palatable the variable smoothies were in comparison to the control smoothie.

There was a clear distinction between the objective variables tested and the subjective variables

tested. pH was similar for all four smoothies, with the exception of the almond milk smoothie

being more acidic. In the line spread tests, each smoothie varied in viscosity and all four

smoothies were homogeneous. Subjectively, all smoothies were ranked in such a way that they

were deemed acceptable as a food product. However, it was the control smoothie that was most

liked.

Materials and Methods

Ingredient Amount Ingredient Source(name,

distributor, location)

Whole Cow’s Milk 1 cup ShopRite Whole Milk-

4
 Wakefurn Food Corp.-
Keasby, NJ

Almond Milk 1 cup Almond Breeze Vanilla

Almond Milk-Blue Diamond
Growers-Sacramento,CA

Soy Milk 1 cup 8th Continent Original

Soymilk-Stremicks Heritage
Foods- Santa Ana, CA

Cashew Milk 1 cup Silk Unsweetened Vanilla

Cashew Milk-Whitewave
Foods- Broomfield, CO

Frozen raspberries 4 cups (1 cup per smoothie) Shoprite Fresh Frozen Red
Raspberries-Wakefurn Food
Corp.- Keasby, NJ

Frozen blueberries 2 cups (½ cup per smoothie) ShopRite Fresh Frozen

Blueberries-Wakefurn Food
Corp.- Keasby, NJ

Frozen strawberries 2 cups (½ cup per smoothie) ShopRite Fresh Frozen Whole
Strawberries-Wakefurn Food
Corp.- Keasby, NJ

Banana 4, whole Dole Bananas-Wakefurn

Food Corp.- Keasby, NJ

Honey 12 tbsp (3 tbsp per smoothie) ShopRite Grade A Fancy

HoneyWakefurn Food Corp.-
Keasby, NJ

In a high speed blender, the control smoothie was prepared using 1 cup of whole milk, 1

cup of frozen raspberries, ½ cup frozen blueberries, ½ cup frozen strawberries, 3 tbsp of honey,

and 1 whole banana, peeled and chunked. The following three samples were prepared in the

exact same way, simply replacing the whole milk for each of the non-dairy milks (Almond, Soy,

and Cashew). The smoothies were then portioned into 3 oz. sample cups and placed accordingly

on a labeled plate, for our panelists to taste and evaluate. Four randomized sample numbers

5
indicated each of the smoothies that were given to our panelists. Sample 117 was the control

smoothie made with whole milk, Sample 334 contained almond milk, Sample 547 contained soy

milk and Sample 789 contained cashew milk.

After each smoothie was prepared, about 3 tablespoons and ⅓ cup (seperated) of each

smoothie were set aside to perform our objective evaluations. The 3 tbsp of each smoothie were

placed into previously labeled test tubes and left to sit for thirty minutes, to be tested for

homogeneity and pH. pH was tested by dipping a pH strip into each of the test tubes, and

comparing the color to the provided pH reference sheet. In the interim, a line spread test was

performed for each of the ⅓ cup amounts of each smoothie that had been set aside.

After measuring our objective variables, we distributed the samples to each of our six

panelists along with a sensory ballot sheet. Panelists were asked to take a sip of each sample and

hold it in their mouths for 5-10 seconds, moving it around the mouth to hit all tasting areas. They

were also prompted to rinse their mouths out with room temperature water in between samples,

waiting at least 20 seconds before tasting the next one. The five sensory evaluation questions on

our ballots were as follows: How CREAMY is the sample? How THICK is the sample? How

SWEET is the sample? How TART is the sample? Overall Liking. Panelists were asked to rate

each sample from 1-9 for each category. For example when asked How CREAMY is the sample?,

a score of 1 would indicate “not creamy at all”, a score of 5 would indicate “just right” and a

score of 9 would indicate “too creamy”. After rating each of the samples, panelists also had the

option of leaving any comments they had.

6
Results

Objective Tests: Below are the results of three objective tests: Line Spread, pH, and

Homogeneity

Table 1
Table depicting the results after a sample from each smoothie was tested for viscosity using a
line spread test, tested for pH levels, and whether it stayed homogeneous after sitting for thirty
minutes.
Variable Whole Milk Almond Milk Soy Milk Cashew Milk
(control) Smoothie Smoothie Smoothie
Smoothie

Line Spread 19.38 23.75 17.5 17.5

(mm)

pH 5 3 5 5

Homogeneity Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous

Throughout Throughout Throughout Throughout

7
Sensory Evaluations: Below is each of the graphs depicting results of the sensory evaluations.

Figure 1 Graph illustrating the results for each of the samples for the question, How CREAMY is the
sample? After conducting a T-test on each of the samples in comparison to the control group, we found
that Almond Milk, in terms of creaminess had a p-value of 0.01, which indicated it was significant. Soy
Milk and Cashew milk had p-values of 1.0 and 0.17, respectively, concluding that both were insignificant.

Figure 2 Graph illustrating the results for each of the samples for the question, How THICK is the
sample? After conducting a T-test on each of the samples in comparison to the control group, we found

8
that Almond Milk, in terms of thickness had a p-value of 0.00, which indicated it was once again,
significant. Soy Milk and Cashew milk had p-values of 0.17 and 0.42, respectively, concluding that both
were insignificant.

Figure 3 Graph illustrating the results for each of the samples for the question, How SWEET is the
sample? After conducting a T-test on each of the samples in comparison to the control group, we found
that Almond Milk, in terms of sweetness had a p-value of 1.00, which indicated it was insignificant. Soy
Milk and Cashew milk had p-values of 0.63 and 0.14, respectively, concluding that both were also
insignificant.

9
Figure 4 Graph illustrating the results for each of the samples for the question, How TART is the sample?
After conducting a T-test on each of the samples in comparison to the control group, we found that
Almond Milk, in terms of tartness had a p-value of 0.61, which indicated it was insignificant. Soy Milk
and Cashew milk had p-values of 0.61 and 0.27, respectively, concluding that both were also
insignificant.

Figure 5 Graph illustrating the results for each of the samples for the evaluation of Overall Liking. After
conducting a T-test on each of the samples in comparison to the control group, we found that Almond
Milk, in terms of overall liking had a p-value of 0.08, which indicated it was insignificant. Soy Milk and
Cashew milk had p-values of 0.66 and 0.13, respectively, concluding that both were also insignificant.

10
Nutrition Fact Labels: Below are the nutrition labels for each of the smoothie recipes, based on 6
oz. portion sizes.

11
12
Discussion

In order for people with CMA to potentially increase fruit consumption, a mixed berry

smoothie was made using whole milk (control), almond milk, soy milk, and cashew milk. These

non-dairy alternatives make it possible for those avoiding dairy to consume dairy products such

as smoothies. This study looked at the acceptability and palatability of a mixed berry smoothie

when it was made with non-dairy milk alternatives. After analysis, objective testing showed

almond milk to be the least viscous, and most acidic. All smoothies were homogeneous after

sitting for thirty minutes. Subjectively, the smoothie with the highest overall liking was the

control smoothie, followed closely by soy milk. The ratings for creaminess and thickness were

highest for the control smoothie and the soymilk smoothie. The cashew milk smoothie was rated

highest for sweetness, and the control smoothie was rated highest in tartness. The objective

results showed that the control milk smoothie, soy milk smoothie, and cashew milk smoothie are

favorable (in comparison to the control smoothie) while subjective results showed the soy milk

smoothie was the most favorable non-dairy alternative to the control smoothie.

The most important finding in the objective tests was how similar the results were. The

control smoothie, soy milk smoothie, and cashew milk smoothie were identical in pH and

homogeneity (see table 1). The line spreads for the soy milk smoothie and cashew milk smoothie

were identical at 17.5mm and when compared to the control at 19.38, were less than 3mm

different. The almond milk smoothie, however, was less viscous at 23.75mm and more acidic at

a pH of 3. This indicates that from a strictly objective perspective, the soy milk and cashew milk

smoothie are appropriate replacements.

The most important finding from the subjective tests was that soy milk was most

comparable to the control smoothie in creaminess (Fig. 1), thickness (Fig. 2), and overall liking

13
(Fig. 5). The control smoothie was the tartest while soy milk was the least tart (Fig. 4), while the

control smoothie was only slightly sweeter than the soy milk (Fig. 3). This indicates that from a

subjective standpoint, soy milk is the most appropriate replacement.

It was not surprising that soy milk was the closest to cow’s milk, since it has long been

accepted as the most favorable non-dairy milk alternative (Foods for Special Dietary Needs,

2015). What was surprising was that the almond milk smoothie was more acidic (Table 1) than

the other three and rated lowest for creaminess (Fig.1), thickness (Fig.2). This was surprising

because almond milk is more common as a non-dairy alternative than cashew milk, yet cashew

milk was ranked higher in creaminess and thickness.

When creating the nutrition fact labels, it was expected that each smoothie would differ

from the next calorically, however it was interesting to see that the smoothie made with cashew

milk was the lowest in calories, with 60 less calories than the control smoothie. While looking at

the nutrition fact labels, the smoothie made with soy milk was the most comparable to the

control smoothie. Both contained 6g of protein, and a very similar amount of carbohydrates.

Their fat content differed by merely two grams, with whole milk having 6 grams of fat, and soy

milk containing 3 grams. In addition, it was interesting to see that all three non-dairy milk

options had more Calcium than the whole milk smoothie. This was most like due to the fact that

non-dairy milk alternatives are often fortified with Calcium and Vitamin D. Both the almond

milk and cashew milk smoothies contained 25% Calcium, while the soy milk smoothie contained

20% and the whole milk smoothie contained 15%.

Upon completion of the experiment, several difficulties were faced that, if recreated,

could have been avoided. The varieties of milks, although different, were not kept as consistent

as they could have been. The almond milk used, was labeled as Vanilla Sweetened Almond

14
Milk, and the cashew milk was labeled as Unsweetened Vanilla Cashew. Ideally, the Original,

Unsweetened versions would have been preferred and would have been consistent with the

experiment. Another potential error that may be avoided, if the experiment were to be repeated is

the lack of focus on the color change of the smoothies. Prior to making the smoothies and in

preparation of the ballots, it was decided that color would be an insignificant factor and had been

left out of subjective evaluations. After preparing the smoothies, a significant color difference

with each of the milks used was noticed. In case of repeating the experiment, a question along

the lines of Which smoothie is most visually appealing? could be used to determine any effects

that the color may have had on the results.

Overall, for someone with CMA, a mixed berry smoothie made with soy milk would be

the best option in order to increase fruit consumption. This appealing and palatable smoothie

showed the most resemblance to a smoothie made with whole milk, while also compensating

nutritionally in Calcium and Protein. This finding may help those who suffer (especially

children) with CMA find another way to increase fruit consumption.

15
References

Crittenden, Ross G. “Cow's Milk Allergy: A Complex Disorder.” Journal of the American
College of Nutrition, vol. 24, no. 6,
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2005.10719507.

Blanchette, L., and J. Brug. “Determinants of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption among 6–12‐
Year‐Old Children and Effective Interventions to Increase Consumption.” Journal of Human
Nutrition and Dietetics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1 Dec. 2005,
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2005.00648.x/full.

Morisset M, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Kanny G, Guénard L, Beaudouin E, Flabbée J, Hatahet R.

“Thresholds of clinical reactivity to milk, egg, peanut and sesame in immunoglobulin E-
dependent allergies: evaluation by double-blind or single-blind placebo-controlled oral
challenges.” Clin Exp Allergy. 2003; 33(8):1046-1051.

Vandenplas, Y., De Greef, E., & Devreker, T. (2014). “Treatment of Cow’s Milk Protein
Allergy”. Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, 17(1), 1–5.
http://doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2014.17.1.1

Foods for Special Dietary Needs: Non-dairy Plant-based Milk Substitutes and Fermented Dairy-
type Products, 2015. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2012.761950

16