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

net/publication/336579600

Production and Quality evaluation of soy milk yoghurt.

Article · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 2,200

4 authors, including:

Ejinkeonye Uju Fabian Ugwuona

Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike
8 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Elderly care View project

Optimization of nutrients in foods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ejinkeonye Uju on 27 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

PRODUCTION AND QUALITY EVALUATIONOF SOYMILK YOGHURT

Ugwona, F.U, Obeta, N.A, Ejinkeonye, U.B and Aliyu, S.A

1
Department of Food Science & Technology,College of Applied Food Sciences and Tourism, Michael Okpara
University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State.
2
Department of Home Economics, Hospitality Management & Tourism, College of Applied Food Sciences & Tourism,
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State.
3
Department Of Home Science and Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Lafia Campus, Nasarawa
State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria
2
Corresponding author’s email: ejimsuju@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Background: Yoghurt is a fermented dairy product basically produced from cow's milk. In Nigeria, cows' milk
is imported and relatively expensive. Soymilk is inexpensive and available and could be alternative to cow's
milk in yoghurt production.
Objective: This study evaluated nutrient composition and sensory characteristics of soymilk yoghurt.
Methods: Soymilk (4.6litres) of 12.5% total solid was produced from 500g of soybean seed using standard
method and divided into 3portions (C1, C2 and C3) of 1000ml each. Liquid cows' milk was made by mixing
125gof full cream powdered milk with1litreof distilled water; and designated B. The C1, C2, C3 and B, were
separately pasteurized (85 OC, 15 mins), homogenized, cooled to 40 – 44OC and inoculated with 0.44% of 50:50%
mixture of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophillus. Sucrose (1.95g), carboxyl methyl cellulose
(CMC) (0.96g) and strawberry (2.5ml) and commercial cow's milk flavour (0.10g) were added tosamplesC1, C2
and C3 while lactose and calcium citrate were added only to C2 and C3 at different concentrations. These were
fermented (7h), cooled (44OC) gradually to set. The yoghurts were analyzed for nutrient composition, microbial
and sensory quality.
Results: Soy milk yoghurt which had no CMC was relatively higher in carbohydrate (50.01%) than others which
had 2.85% to 4.84% carbohydrate. The sensory attributes of the formulated samples were affected by ingredients,
but they compared favourably with the cow's milk yoghurt.
Conclusion: The produced soy milk yoghurts had nutrient and sensory quality characteristics similar to cow's milk
yoghurt and could be substitute cow's milk yoghurt.

Keywords: Production quality evaluation, soy milk yoghurt.

Introduction children in many parts of developing countries (1),

Yoghurt is a fermented dairy product basically
produced from cow's milk. Cow's milk is a high
nutrient animal product but relatively expensive.
Cow's milk is mostly imported from outside Nigeria
and cannot be afforded by many Nigerians. Soymilk
produced from readily available soybean in Nigeria
could serve as an alternative to cow's milk for yoghurt
production (4). Soymilk, unlike cows' milk is
produced from soybean, a leguminous seed of plant
origin. Soy milk yoghurt is good and cheaper
alternative to cow's milk yoghurt if closely mimics the
dairy based yoghurt in flavour and consistency to
sustain consumers' taste for the conventional cow's
milk yoghurt. Soymilk yoghurt is a healthy fermented
food which contains more calcium and protein than
soymilk because of the added calcium salts and
cultures at production. Soybean and soybean products
may be the most practical means of relief from
kwashiorkor which is increasing in prevalence among
including Nigeria. This is because of the high protein
content. Also, soybean has many bioactive
constituents which may help reduce bone loss that
typically occur after menopause. A typical example is
soy isoflavone, a phytochemical, which can help
women with low bone mineral content to prevent hip
fractures in postmenopausal years (2). The isoflavone
also reducesabnormal fat development, thereby
inhibiting cancer in human. Isoflavones (genistein,
daidzein and glycitein) which are anticarcinogenic,
lower blood sugar and cholesterol and prevent
osteoporosis in women undergoing menopause (6).
High fibre in powdered soymilk can help reduce
incidence of colon cancer among regular consumers.
In areas of the world where soybean is eaten regularly,
rates of colon cancer tend to be low. Soybean contains
relatively considerable amounts of glucosylamide,
which may be the reason for the cancer preventive
effects of eating soy foods (3). Soybean has

127
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

galactosides such as raffinose and stachyose which are
not digestible by man and could serve as substrate to
probiotics in rumen (5). Soymilk is relatively low in
calcium but could be fortified with calcium salts prior
to yoghurt production.
Starter cultures for yoghurt production are lactic acid
bacteria (LAB). Foods fermented with LAB are
hygienically safe, stable and offer alternative sensory
properties (7). Lactic acid bacteria are collectively
called probiotics because of their role in digestion and
physiological functioning of the human bowel and are
very important component of yoghurt. Yoghurt is a
highly cherished and consumed by most Nigerians of
all ages. This study is set to produce soy-based
yoghurts with and without calcium fortification; and of
nutritional, sensory and microbiological qualities
comparable to those of cows' milk yoghurt.
2. Materials and methods
Processing of soymilk: Soybean seeds (500 g) were
washed and fermented (16 h) with tap water (2.5
litres). The seeds were dehulled manually and rinsed
out with clean tap water. The nibs were wet-milled into
paste using 2.5litres of clean water within 5 minutes in
a highspeed attrition mill (Perten 310, Perten
Instruments, Sweden). The slurry was sieved with
added water through muslin cloth, and the residue
squeezed with right palm to get all the milk. The
residue was re-mixed water three times the volume of
the milk and then filtered again to recover more
O
soymilk. The milk was heated to boil (100 C) for
20minutes with continuous stirring to minimize
coagulation. The sterilized liquid soy milk yielded was
4.6 litres and had 12.46% total solid.

Table 1: Ingredients for the experimental yoghurts production

Yoghurt
B C1 C2 C3
Ingredients

Distilled water (ml) 87.50 - - -

Full cream powdered cow’s 12.50 - - -
milk (ml)
16 h fermented soymilk (ml) - 100 0 100 0 100 0

Lactose (g) - - 0.56 2.24

Sucrose (g) 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95
Yoghurt culture (g) 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
C arboxyl methyl cellulose 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
(CMC ) (g)
Calcium citrate(g) - - 0.22 0.65
Strawberry flavour (ml) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Commercial cow’s milk flavour (g) 0. 0 0 0.10 0.10 0.10

Source: Ejinkeonye, U (2018)

Yoghurt production: Powdered cow's milk was
reconstituted by mixing 125 g of full cream powdered
milk (Peak, WAMCO Co, Holland) in 1litre of distilled
water and designated sample B while three portions,
C1, C2 and C3,of 1000ml each, were measured from
the produced soymilk. The liquid cows' milk (B) and
the soymilk samples (C1, C2, C3) were separately
pasteurized (85OC) for 15 mins, homogenized in
Kenwood mixer (UW HM436 oog, Kenwood Co,
O O
China) and cooled at 44 C. The samples were
inoculated with 0.44% yoghurt culture (50%:50%
mixture of Lactobacillus bulgaricus and
Streptococcus thermophillus) at 44OC. Other
ingredients namely 1.95g sucrose, 0.96g carboxyl
methyl cellulose (CMC), 2.5ml strawberry and0.1g
commercial cow's milk flavour was added to the C1,
C2 and C3 as shown in Table 1. Also 0.56g and 2.24g
of lactose, and 0.22g and 0.65g of calcium citrate were,
respectively added to samplesC2 and C3. The four
samples were fermentation in a thermostatic bath at
44 Cfor 7h, and then allowed to cool gradually (8).
This resulted in four yoghurt samples B, C1, C2 and

128
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

C3 transparent plastic cups.Distilled water was provided

Chemical analysis
Proximate constituents were determined in triplicates
usingmethods of the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists (9).
Microbiological analysis
The yoghurt samples were analysed for total viable
count, coli forms and moulds according to procedures
outlined in the Compendium of Methods for the
Microbiological Examination of Foods (10). Briefly, 5
ml of soymilk yoghurt was mixed with 45 ml of 0.1%
-1
peptone water (10 dilution and serially diluted up to
-10
10 with peptone water (0.1 %). These dilutions were
then used for plating.
Total viable count: One millilitre from each dilution
was pour-plated in duplicate on nutrient agar plate and
O
incubated at 37 C for 24 h.
Coli form counts: Peptone water (0.1%) containing
5ml of each yoghurt sample was kept at room
temperature (26±2OC) for 1 h for enumeration.
Diluents were then made using 0.1% peptone water,
and 1ml from each diluent was pour plated in
duplicates on to violet red bile agar (Himedia) and the
plates were inoculated at 37OC for 48 h.
Mould counts: Peptone water (0.1%) containing 5ml
of yoghurt was kept at room temperature (26±2OC) for
48 h for enumeration. Diluents were made using 0.1%
peptone water, and 1ml from each diluent was pour-
plated on Saboround dextrose agar plates, and the
plates were incubated at room temperature for 48 h
after which colonies were counted manually.
Sensory evaluation: Sensory evaluation was done on
fresh yoghurt samples, using the method of Mellgaard,
Civille and Cart (11). Fifteen undergraduate panellists
evaluated the sensory attributes of the yoghurt
samples. The samples were presented chilled in 25 ml
plastic bottles with random number, served in
for the panellists to rinse mouth after each sample. The
panellists were familiar with cow's milk yoghurts and
were given no time limit for evaluation of the
experimental yoghurts,but each panellist spent not
more than 10 minsin rating of the samples. The
attributes evaluated were colour, texture, flavour,
mouth-feel and over-all acceptability. For each
sample, panellists scored these characteristics using 9-
point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely, 2 = dislike
very much, 3 = dislike moderately, 4 = dislike slightly,
5 = neither like nor dislike, 6 = like slightly, 7 = like
moderately, 8 = like very much, 9 = like extremely).
Statistical Analysis: Data were analysed using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences software
(SPSS Software Version 19.0, SPSS Inc., 2001) and
means separated with Turkey's least significant
differences (LSD). Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to compare means at p < 0.05 level of
significance.
Results
Proximate composition
Table 2 shows the proximate composition of the
yoghurt samples. The yoghurt samples had90.61 (B) to
93.90 % liquid (C3). The B yoghurt had higher
carbohydrate (3.84 %) and protein (3.16 %) contents
than the soy yoghurts (2.85 – 3.75 % carbohydrate and
1.24 – 2.55 % protein). However, the soy yoghurts had
higher fat (0.79 % – 2.35%) in C3 and C2, respectively.
There was no detectable crude fibre in any of the four
yoghurt samples. The ash content wassignificantly (p
< 0.05) highest (0.67 %) in the B yoghurt followed by
C2 (0.50 %), C1 (0.48 %) and C3 (0.31 %). Among the
soy yoghurts, C2 had the highest amount of
carbohydrate, protein, fat and ash contents while C3
had the least contents of these nutrients except for
carbohydrate content.

Table 2: Proximate composition of yoghurt samples

Constituent (%) (B ) (C1) (C2) (C3)
Cow ’s milk Soy yoghurt Soy yoghurt Soy yoghurt
yoghurt
a c b a
Carbohydrate 3.84 2.85 3.01 3.76
c a b
Moisture 90.61 93.58 91.49 93.90a
a b d
Protein 3.16 2.28 c 2.55 1.24
c b a b
Fat 0.72 0.81 2.35 0.79
a b b c
Ash 0.67 0.48 0.50 0.31
Fibre ND ND ND ND
B = cow's milk yoghurt with no added calcium citrate and lactose (milk sugar), C1 = soy
yoghurt with no added lactose and calcium citrate, C2 = soy yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22
g of calcium citrate, C3 = soy yoghurt with added lactose and 0.65 g of calcium citrate,
ND = not detected. Values along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

129
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

Mineral composition manganese (10.70 – 16.04 g/100 g). However,

Table 3 shows mineral contents of the four
yoghurt samples. Mineral contents of the soy
milk yoghurts were comparable with those of the
cow's milk. The yoghurts were high in calcium
(50.02 – 70.01 g/100 g), phosphorus (39.94 –
50.03 g/100 g), iron (39.71 – 78.51 g/100 g) and
zinc (33.29 – 43.80 g/100 g) but relatively low in
these minerals were significantly lower (p < 0.05)
in the plain soymilk yoghurt (C1) than in cow's
milk yoghurt. Phosphorus content was
significantly higher (p <0.05) in the cow's milk
yoghurt than in any of the soy milk yoghurts. The
C2 and the C3 had significantly higher (p<0.05)
contents of these mineral than the cow's milk
yoghurt.

Table 3: Mineral composition (g/100g) of yoghurt samples

Samples Calcium Phosphorus Iron Magnesium Zinc Manganese

c a b c c
B 59.04±0.00 50.03±0.00 41.51±0.003 24.31±0.04 39.52±0.04 11.31±0.03 b
d b b d d
C1 50.02±0.0 41.01±0.00 39.71±0.02 16.51±0.03 33.29±0.03 10.70±0.02b
a b a b a
C2 69.02±0.00 39.94±0.00 76.72±0.03 26.11±0.31 43.80±0.01 15.89±0.003a
a b a a a
C3 70.01±0.00 41.01±0.00 78.51±0.03 36.78±0.02 42.38±0.03 16.04±0.03a
B = cow's milk yoghurt with no added calcium citrate and lactose C1 = soy milk yoghurt with no added lactose and calcium
citrate, C2 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22 g of calcium citrate, C3 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose
and 0.65 g of calcium citrate, ND = not detectedValues along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

Microbial quality
Microbial quality of the yoghurts samples is shown in Table 4. Moulds were not detected in any of the samples
within the three days of storage. Coliforms (CFU/ml) were detected in yoghurt samples C2 at 2.0×10 and C3 at
1.0×10 but not in the samples A and C1. There were viable counts (CFU/ml) in all the samples and this increased in
5 5 5 5
the following order: A (1.43×10 ) > C1 (1.82×10 ) > C2 (2.62×10 ) > C3 (2.91×10 ).

Table 4: Microbiological quality of cow’s milk and soymilk yoghurts after 3days of
O
refrigerated (4 C) storage.
Samples Total viable Count Coli forms Mould
(TVC) (CFU/ml) (CFU/ml) (CFU/ml)

B 1.43×10 5 0.0×10 0.0×10

C1 1.82×10 5 0.0×10 0.0×10

5
C2 2.62×10 2.0×10 1.0×10
5
C3 2.91×10 1.0×10 0.0×10

B = cow's milk yoghurt with no added calcium phosphate and lactose, C1 = soy milk yoghurt
with no added lactose and calcium citrate, C2 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22 g
of calcium citrate, C3 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.65 g of calcium citrate,
ND = not detected. Values along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

130
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018

Sensory analysis
Sensory evaluation scores for colour, flavour, texture, mouth feel and overall acceptability of all the yoghurts
by the panellists ranged from 6.27 to 8.07, all above the mean score of 5 for the 9-points hedonic scale used.
Thus, all the four yoghurt samples were acceptable to the consumers. Yoghurt sample C3 was significantly
(p< 0.05) preferred to samples B, C1 and C2 in terms of flavour, texture, mouth feel and overall acceptability
(Table 5). However, colour of the cow's milk yoghurt was preferred to every other sample.

Table 5: Sensory properties of the produced yoghurts

Samples Colour Texture Flavour Mouth feel Overall acceptability

B 8 .07? 6 .80 ?
6 .53? 6 .87? 6 .93 ?
?
C1 7 .00? 7 .70 6 .27? 6 .80? 6 .60 ?
C2 6 .73? 6 .70 ?
7 .27? 6 .60? 6 .87 ?
?
C3 7 13? 7 .20 7 .87? 8 .27? 7 .67 ?

B = cows' milk yoghurt with no added calcium citrate and lactose (milk sugar), C1 = soy milk yoghurt with no added lactose and
calcium citrate, C2 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose and 0.22 g of calcium citrate, C3 = soy milk yoghurt with added lactose
and 0.65 g of calcium citrate, ND = not detected. Values along the column with different superscript are significantly different.

Discussion antioxidants, and are also known to prevent many

The soymilk yoghurts were higher in fat content than
the cow's milk yoghurt. High fat content of the soy
milk yoghurts is possible from the usual high fat
content in soybeans and suggested availability of fat-
soluble vitamins in the yoghurts. Also, soy fat is plant
fat, and composed mainly of unsaturated fats which
are of high health benefit to human. Cow milk fat is
animal fat, which on the other hand is composed
mainly of saturated fats which are likely to predispose
consumers to heart-related diseases (13). High ash
content implied high minerals in the samples. Higher
protein and minerals in the cow's yoghurt suggessed to
higher quality than the soy milk yoghurts. Addition of
lactose to soymilk for production of soy milk yoghurt
improved nutrient of the substrate for high viable,
probiotics counts, and quality of the final product as
evident in qualities of C1 [Table 2]. It improved the
sensory properties of the soy milk yoghurt samples.
Cow's milk and its fermented products are naturally
high in calcium and most minerals while plain soymilk
and soy milk yoghurt are comparatively low in these
minerals (14). However, the reverse was the case with
the soymilk yoghurts fortified with calcium citrate.
The improved mineral contents, particularly calcium
in C2 and C3 was due to the added calcium citrate.
Calcium certified food additives are generally
regarded as safe (15). Minerals play important
metabolic and physiologic roles in living cells (16).
Iron, zinc and manganese work in synergy with
selenium to strengthen immune system as
degenerative diseases, including cardiomyopathy,
muscle degeneration, growth retardation, alopecia,
dermatitis, immunologic dysfunction, gonadial
atrophy and bleeding disorder (17).
Calcium is an essential micronutrient, obligatory for
acquiring optimum bone mass. High amount of
soluble calcium in the food aids total calcium
absorption (18,19) by facilitating ionisation of calcium
in the digestive system. Manufacturers often fortify
soymilk with similar levels of calcium as in cows' milk
(approximately 120 mg/ 100 ml) by adding calcium
phosphate, calcium citrate, calcium carbonate or
calcium chloride (20).
The microbial counts indicated that soy milk yoghurts
were higher in total coliform and viable counts than the
cow's milk yoghurt. Higher coliform and viable counts
in soy milk yoghurts than in cows' milk yoghurt might
not necessarily imply unsafe. Application of dairy
standards to soy products may not be appropriate
because vegetable foods can be safe with bacterial
loads that might be considered too high in foods of
animal origin, due to the differences in types of
bacteria likely to be encountered in these two sources
(21). Lactic acid bacterial fermentation has been
known to improve nutritional quality, lowers
cholesterol (22) and carcinogen levels of soymilk (23),
and improves immune status of consumers (24).
Calcium-fortified soy milk yoghurt could serve as a
close substitute for cow's milk yoghurt to serve the

131
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences
teeming consumers in Nigeria.
Conclusion
Fortification of soy milk with calcium phosphate and
other ingredients improved mineral contents of soy
milk yoghurt. The soy yoghurts compared favourably
with cow's milk yoghurt in nutrient and sensory
characteristics. There were no moulds, low coliforms
but high total viable counts in the soy milk yoghurts,
suggesting high presence of probiotic bacteria and of
health promoting qualityof the yoghurts. Nigerian
women, particularly rural mothers should be
encouraged to process and use soy foods, including
milk and yoghurt. Farmers should be encouraged and
assisted by Nigerian government and non-
governmental organisations (NGO's) to sustain
commercial production of soybean.
REFERENCES
1. Grewal, R.B (2000). Utilization and Processing of
Soybean to Prepare Traditional Foods of
India. The third International Soybeans
Processing and Utilization Conference
(ISPUC-111) 2000 of the innovative Era for
soybeans, October 15-20, 2000, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki, Japan, Pp 325-326.
2. Chen, Y.M.C., Hoss, L. Ho, S.S., and woo, J.L.
(2003). Soy Isoflavones have a Favourable effect
on bone loss in Chinese post-menopausal Women
with lower bone mass; a double blind, randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
and Metabolism, 88: 4740-4747.
3. Symolon, H.E.M., Schmiz D.L. Dillehay, A.H., and
Merrill, J.R. (2004). Dietary soy sphingolipids
suppress tumorigenesis and gene expression in
1,2-dimethylylydrazine-treatedd CFI Mice and
ApcMin/+Mice. Journal of Nutrition, 134: 1157-
1161.
4. Favaro Trindade, C.S., Terzi, S.C., Trugo, L.C.,
Della Modesta, R.C., and Couri, S. (2001).
Development and evaluation of soy milk-based
yoghurt. Archivoslatino Americanos d e Assessment of the phytochemical and nutrient
Nutricion, 51(1): 100-104.
5. Kailasaphathy, K. and Rybka, S.L. (1997).
Acidophilus and B. Bifidobacterium spp.- their
therapeutic potential and survival i. Yogurt. The
Australian Journal of Dairy Technology, 52: 28-
35.
6. Fukutake, M., Takabashi, M., Ishida, K.,
Kawamura, H., Sugimura, T., and
Wakabayashim, K. (1996). Quantification of
genistein and genistin in soybeans and soybean
products. Food Chemistry and Toxicology, 35:
132
Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018
457-61.
7. Salminen, S., Deighton, M.A., Benno, Y. and
Gorbach, S.L. (1998). Lactic acid bacteria in
health and disease. In, Lactic acid bacteria:
Microbiology and functional aspects.
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA,
211-254p.
8. Richard, L. (2001). Fermented milk, in: L.
Richard (Ed.), Microbiology Handbook: Dairy
nd
Products, 2 edition. Leatherhead Food Research
Association Publishing, Leatherhead, 85-96p.
9. A.O.A.C. (2006). American Cancer Society.
Cancer Facts and Figures. American Cancer
Society. Atlanta, GA.
10. Downes, F.P. and Ito, K. (2001). Compendium of
Methods for the Microbiological
Examination of Foods. Forth edition
Washington D.C.:American Public Health
Association.
11. Mellgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., and Cart, E.T.
th
(1999). Sensory Evaluation Techniques 4 edition,
CRC press, Baco Raton.
12. SPSS (2001).SPSS Software Ver. 19.0, SPSS
Inc.,Microsoft Windows, 2001, London.
13. Singh, S.R., Rachie, K.O. and Dashiell, K.E.
(2000). Soybean for the tropics: research,
production and utilization. John Wiley and sons
Ltd. 1-5p, 167-170p.
14. Tang, A. I., Shang, N. P., Wilcox, G., Walker, K.
Z. and Stojanovska, L. (2007).
Fermentation of calcium-fortified soymilk with
Lactobacillus: effect on calcium solubility,
isoflavone conversion and production of organic
acids. Journal of Food Science, 72, 9: m431-
m436.
15. Mahindru, , S .N. (2008). Food Additives:
Characteristics, Detection and Estimation.
A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, 4435-36/7,
Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi,
India, 339p.
16.Enechi, O.C., and Odonwodo, I. (2003).
composition of pulverized roots of Cissus
qudragularis. Journal of Biological Research and
Biotechnology, 1: 63-68.
17. Chaturvedi, V.C., Shrivastava, R. and Upreti,
R.K. (2004). Viral infections and trace
elements: A complex interaction. Current
Science, 87: 1536-1554.
18. Schrroder, B.G., Griffin, H., Specker, B.I. and
Adrams, S.A. (2005). Absorption of c a l c i u m
from the carbonated dairy soft drinks is greater
than that from fat-free milk a n d c a l c i u m -
 Nigerian Journal of Nutritional Sciences
fortified orange juice in women. Nutrition
Research, 25: 737-43.
19. Theobald, H.E. (2005). Dietary calcium and
health. Nutrition Bulletin, 30: 237-77.
20. Heaney, R.P., Rafferty, K. and Bierman, J. (2005).
Not all calcium-fortified beverages are
equal. Nutrition Today, 40(1): 39-44.
21. Ambarasu, K. and Vijayalakshmi, G. (2007).
Improved shelf life of protein-rich tofu
using Ocimum sanctum (tulsi) extracts to benefit
Indian rural population. Journal of Food
Science, 72(8): M300-M304.
View publication stats
Vol. 39 No. 1 March, 2018
22. Liong, M.T. and Shah, N.P. (2005). Bile salt
decomposition and BSH activity of five
bifidobacoterial strains and their co-precipitating
properties. Food Research International, 38: 135-
139.
23. Commane, D., Hughes, R., Shortt, C., and
Rowland, I. (2005). The potential mechanisms
involved in the anticarcinogenic action of
probiotics. Mutation Research, 591: 276-289.
24. Reid, G. (2006). Safe and efficacious probiotics:
what are they? Trends in Microbiology,
14(1): 348-52.
133