You are on page 1of 5

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320830877

Production and Quality Evaluation of Honey Loop
Drink Using Locally Sourced Cereals

Article · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 2

3 authors, including:

Oluseye Oladapo Abiona
Osun State University
6 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

quality assessment of composite flour from cocoyam and sweet potato View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oluseye Oladapo Abiona on 03 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

com drinks using local cereals. Keywords: Cereals. 1985). sorghum. honey development (Wikipedia. minerals. protein. Ladoke Akintola University of Technology. sorghum etc. INTRODUCTION Cereals are plants which yield edible grains like. The chemical analysis gave (0. local. it can be concluded that honey loop drinks be produced using the formulation for sample D. UK.4. Ireland. Ogbomosho. quality. every serving gives children a third of their daily needs of Grains are eaten in many ways: sometimes as pastes. Since sample D was found to have the highest nutrients composition and was among the two most acceptable samples (D and E). 1994. The milled cereals were sieved and mix in various proportions from standard. 4. rice. Osogbo. India. 3(10). Ngoddy (indigenous) or foreign (exotic). 1985). 2001). fat. The cereal was They belong to the monocotyledonous family. Nigeria Accepted 23 October 2013 Work on the production and quality evaluation of honey loop drink using locally sourced raw materials was reported.scholarly-journals.07) respectively. mould and yeast count to be below the recommended standard for microbial loads. barley. total titratable acidity). 0. 9. Hence this work is on the production and quality evaluation of honey loops **Corresponding author.06 and 77.0-6. oat and rye) and total caloric intakes and 67% of their total protein intake. For sensory evaluation. Honey loops is a breakfast cereal produced in countries far from Nigeria and so they are made by Kellogg's and sold in Sweden. oil. gramineae originally marketed as honey nut loops. no less than six B vitamins which help to convert the food roasts porridges and pottages or other preparation of the into energy and these serving also provide 20% of their seeds. pp. maize. which is a vital help in mental flour. . Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. Honey loop is usually and Ihekonroye.53). The mascot of Honey Loops is a rye. Germany.75- 13. *Department of Chemical Sciences. 458-461 October.7). Brazil.com/SJAS ISSN 2276-7118 © 2013 Scholarly-Journals Full Length Research Paper Production and Quality Evaluation of Honey Loop Drink Using Locally Sourced Cereals **Akande E.31-1. O.A **Department of Food Science and Engineering. Spain. dinner cakes. More often.67-2. AND **Fabunmi M. corn.A.. starch bran.17-2. of Basic and Applied Sciences Osun State University. maize and sorghum). The cereal grains are the has since been dropped from the name in 1998. 2013 Available online at http:// www.O.24. millet is possible with modification so as to be a substitute to the foreign honey lops drinks (Neilson. The proximate composition showed the percentage ash. 2008). *Abiona. microbiological and sensory evaluation using standard methods. they are milled and converted into daily iron needs.65. production.65-85. Nigeria. Argentina and Chile. The samples produced were subjected to various analyses like: proximate. sample D and E were established as the best sample but sample D had the highest nutritional value which may be due to the present of high composition of sorghum in sample D. wheat. total sugar and (8. Belgium. crude fiber and carbohydrate content ranging between (0. The cereals were steeped for three days and washed every 24 hrs before wet milling. E-mail: felemma@yahoo. Cereals can be local loops or generally beverages (Varnam. The results of the microbiological analysis revealed all the samples having total plate count. Using local Netherlands. oats. produced from cereals which are foreign. breakfast. Fac. This was done in order to explore the utilization potentials of most cereals produced in Nigeria for beverages as convenience foods.2-11. indigenous cereals like maize. However. 1991). Samples of Honey Loop drinks were produced from three different local cereals (Millet. It is staple food of the world population providing about 75% made from four nutritious (wheat. barley. honey loop. honeybee called Loopy (Jone. coliform count. the Nut or grass family (Potter. millet.

350micrometer so as to separate the residue from the The sensory evaluation of the samples showed that filtrate. there is cooled to 50 C. It was then mixed up in proportion with . The slurry was pasteurized for 15min and later there is no significant difference between all the samples o in terms of appearance.9 x10 in samples B. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the nutritional and chemical composition of the drinks samples produced were as shown in table 2.31 (in sample B) to 1. Figure 1 showed the flow chart for values obtained ranges from between 1. the values obtained are between the 3 3 the slurry were sieved using muslin bag of range of 1. C(0..20) to sample D (11. The total titratable acidity ranges from Sample E (8. 20% maize and 15% millet). For flavour. the ash content was higher bur with maximum values found with samples D (sample with 30% sorghum. Afterwards. The total sugar found was lower in the three trials samples than the control samples The values in these categories have the minimum with sample D (0. carbohydrate.0 x10 to 3 2. The set of and yeast count. millet. While the remaining samples were with lower values The total sugar contents of all the samples have values with the range of 0.0 10 in sample E.17). Samples A. and 10 % millet). 20%. For the values obtained for total mould the cereals were wet milled (made into slurry). which indicate the The grains were procured from a local farmer in extent of faecal contamination in any food samples. B and C were the control. Nutritional and chemical analyses of the samlpes were carried out using the methods of AOAC (2000). The total plate count represents the total bacteria count of the samples The results obtained in all the samples were below the standard microbial load expected of 1 0 beverages ( 1. The value (ranging between 1. C. C and D which place the food materials safe for human consumption. D. The highest value was found with sample D.35) and F( 0. B (0. For all the trial samples. (1985).1 10 (sample C) 3 the production of honey loop. The grains were sorted and to 3.32).710. B. It was then steeped in water for 3days with the the recommended values for liquid food products and so water being change every 24 hours to avoid odour can be seen that the level of the faecal contamination is contamination. For the coliform count. The samples were labelled as A. The results of the microbiological analysis of the samples of honey loops drinks were as presented in table 3.0 x10 ) as recorded in Ihekenroye and Figure 1: Flow Chart for the Production of Honey Loops Drinks. and colour.24) indicate that all the control samples has lower ash contents with millet (Sample A having the highest).70).71) of 30%. E ( 0. This same trend is found with crude fibre. For the ash content.10 10 in samples D to 3. Oyo State. and protein. 3 Ngoddy. maize.53 (in sample F. at the minimal. (1985). D( 0. while the sensory analysis was carried out by method described in Ihekonroye and Ngoddy. The microbiological analysis was also cried out using the method in Freizier (2000). sorghum. and was well rinsed in water. and 15%. Then the samples were stored in the refrigerator for analysis.40) found with sample E (25%) sorghum. 30% Maize. This implies that MATERIALS AND METHODS the samples of honey loops drinks produced are safe for consumption.34). the 3 Ogbomoso. Sample A (0.0 10 (sample E). E and F. The fat content differs with the highest value (6. All the obtained values are below washed.Akande et al. 459 other additives (honey) using the formulation in table 1 with agitating machine.

35±0. Table 4: Sensory Evaluation of the Sample of Honey Loop Drinks Parameter Sample Codes A B C D E F a a a a a a Appearance (in bottle) 5.71±0.10 0.10 0.86 4.67±0.06±0.010³ 2.10 11.71 ab b b ab a ab Taste 4.44±0.64 6.10 82.00 11.810³ 3.610³ 1.71 6. 460 Table 1: Formulations A Ordinary 65% millet (control) B Ordinary 65% maize (control) C Ordinary 65%sorghum (control) D 30% sorghum + 20%maize +15%millet E 25%sorghum + 30%maize + 10%millet F 20%sorghum + 25%maize + 20%millet Table 2: Nutritional and Chemical Composition of Honey Loop Drink Sample Ash Fat Crude Fibre Carbohydrate Protein TS TTA A 0.11 82.4±0.01 5.01 KEY A = Ordinary 65% Millet (control) B = Ordinary 65% Maize (control) C = Ordinary 65% Sorghum (control) D = 30% Sorghum + 20% Maize +15% Millet E = 25% Sorghum + 30% Maize + 10% Millet F = 20% Sorghum + 25% Maize + 20% Millet.01 D 0.11 9.10 0.17±0.00 6.26±0.310³ 1.64 6.8±0.64 5.75±0.11 F 2.50 5.50 ab b b a a ab Overall acceptability 5.65±0.210³ 1.10 12.29 6.10 0.31±0.0±0.06±0.00 5.53±0.20±0.07 6.29 6.39±0.010³ 2.71 4.10 0.71 6.14 5.0±0.24±0.010³ F 2.32±0.10 20.00 13.910³ KEY A = Ordinary 65% Millet (control) B = Ordinary 65% Maize (control) C = Ordinary 65% Sorghum (control) D = 30% Sorghum + 20% Maize +15% Millet E = 25% Sorghum + 30% Maize + 10% Millet F = 20% Sorghum + 25% Maize + 20% Millet.17±0.07±0.4±0. Agric.510³ 1.30±0.00 0. Scholarly J.77±0.00 2.32±0.10 10.50 b b b a ab ab Flavour 4.910³ B 1.37±0.10 13.910³ 1.36 6.71 5.10 1.10 12. Sci.010³ 1.01 6.00±0.010³ D 2.00±0.00 85.65±0.510³ 3.110³ E 2.50 6.07 3.10 C 0. TS = Total Sugar TTA= Total Titratable Acidity Table 3: Microbiological Composition of Honey Loop drink Sample Total plate count Total coliform count Total mould/yeast count A 2.0±0.74±0.29 6.11 77.86±0.25±0.21±0.10 84.00±0.70±0.00±0.71±0.86 4.00 0.01 5.90±0.510³ 1.07 6.00 B 0.86 4.00 4.110³ C 1.43 6.10 4.10 1.11 8.00 9.93 KEY A = Ordinary 65% Millet (control) B = Ordinary 65% Maize (control) C = Ordinary 65% Sorghum (control) D = 30% Sorghum + 20% Maize +15% Millet E = 25% Sorghum + 30% Maize + 10% Millet F = 20% Sorghum + 25% Maize + 20% Millet .57 a a a a a a Color 5.60±0.40±0.01 E 0.10 0.50 6.00 0.00 8.10 79.78 4.10 4.110³ 2.

View publication stats . The same trend is observed for A. VI Conresso Internationale di CONCLUSION Egottologia (Atti). 5th Edition (pg be the best in all.C. Millet be adapted for the production of honey loop drink. Technology for the Tropics.O. pp:236-252. A. Jones. Beverages: Technology.C. The nutritional combination. A.F. E and F. Food Microbiology Fourth Edition Wikipedia concluded that the formulations for sample D which is Encyclopedia Website. (2001).R. It can therefore be Microbiology. B. (2000). and REFERENCES samples D. Turin. Chemistry and placed it above all the other samples. D. pp.I. Washington D. New York From all the analysis carried out sample D was found to Potter.N. The Chemical Analysis of Food. H.419 Pearson.. Macmillan London. the 382-394) microbiological analysis and the sensory evaluation Varnam. P. and Ngoddy. H. 2008.C the highest mean score this indicates that samples D has Ihekoronye.R. Integrated Food Science and is mostly acceptable in all the quality attributes assessed.H.H. (1981). C. Food Science. William.Akande et al. 1-4 Nielsen. UK: IBRA.A. E. (1995). Official Method of Analytical Association of Official taste. and Joseph. Cardiff. C. (1985). 30%. 461 significant different between samples A. (1995). N. 415. and overall acceptability However. Chemical Publishing Company Inc. pp. Honey and healing through the ages. samples D has Analytical Chemists.O. (1991). (1994). Maize and 15%. Honey in medicine. Sorghum: 20%.