Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

O RI GI NA L
RESEA RCH Optimization of process parameters for the development of
a cheese analogue from pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and
soy milk using response surface methodology
P VER MA 1 , U S AGRAWAL 1 , A K S HAR M A 2 * , B C S AR KAR 2 and H K
S HAR MA 2
1
Department of Post Harvest Process and Food Engineering, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,
Pantnagar, U.A. 263 145, India and 2Department of Food Technology, Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Longowal, Sangrur, Punjab 148 106, India

Response surface methodology was used to optimize starter culture concentration (3–7%), pigeon pea–
soy solids ratio (1 : 0.3 –1 : 1.1), pigeon pea–water ratio (1 : 12–1 : 9), incubation temperature (37–45°C)
and coagulation temperature (75 –95°C) in the development of a cheese analogue from pigeon pea and
soy milk. Pigeon pea milk and soy milk were prepared by a hot water grinding method, followed by
filtration and inoculation. Cheese analogue was obtained through coagulation of the fermented milk by
boiling for 15 min, followed by filtration using double-layered muslin cloth and pressing at 1 kg/cm2
pressure for 1 h. The results showed that the total solids recovery ( TSR), protein content, fat content and
pH varied from 51.09–62.61%, 40.04–55.93%, 9.35–15.36% and 4.48–4.9, respectively, depending on
the experimental conditions. The optimum conditions of process parameters for maximum total solids
recovery were 6.0% starter culture concentration, 1 : 0.4 pigeon pea–soy solids ratio, 1 : 11 pigeon pea–
water ratio, 40.5°C incubation temperature and 88.5°C coagulation temperature.
Keywords Cheese analogue, Pigeon pea milk, Response surface methodology (RSM), Soy milk.

tent, and determining the effect of starter culture,

*Author for correspondence. E-mail: eraksharma@rediffmail.com

I N T RO D U C T I O N
Legumes are an important source of vegetable
protein and many essential amino acids of the
vegetarian diet in the Indian subcontinent, but their
per capita availability is very low (37.8 g /day). A
potential solution is the development of imitation
milk and milk products by utilizing protein from
legumes and their milling by-products. Imitation
milk and milk products replace or extend animal
milk which is too expensive (Padda et al. 1985).
They can also be used to produce cheese analogues
which are balanced in minerals and vitamins as
well as protein and energy (Hallens and Milner
1969). Cheese analogues may have better keeping
quality than natural cheese because vegetable fat is
less likely to develop rancidity than butterfat. The
absence of microbial cultures and the enzyme
systems of cheese analogues creates a more stable
flavour and texture. Lactic acid fermentation has
also been used to prolong the shelf life of legume-
*Author for based milk and also to improve its nutritional value
correspondence. (Gebre-Egziabher 1983; Rao and Pulusani 1988;
E-mail: eraksharma@
Ofuya and Njku 1991). This research was there-
rediffmail.com
fore undertaken with the overall objectives of
© 2005 Society of optimizing process parameters with respect to pH,
Dairy Technology total solid recovery, protein content and fat con-
incubation temperature, coagulation temperature,
pigeon pea–soy solids ratio and pigeon pea–water
ratio on the development of cheese analogues from
pigeon pea milling by-products and soybeans.
M AT E R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S
Materials
Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) grains of the UPAS-20
variety were procured from U.P. Seed and Tarai
Development Corporation, Haldi, India and soybean
(Glycine max) grains were obtained from a local
market. Streptococcus thermopilus and Lactobacillus
delbrueckii subspp. bulgaricus obtained from the
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India,
were used to prepare bulk starter culture.
Methods
Bulk starter culture was prepared following the
steps shown in Figure 1. Pigeon pea grains were
dehulled, cleaned, dried overnight at 60°C and
were used to prepare pigeon pea powder (average
particle = 1.0 mm) in a Willey mill. The powder
was then converted to pigeon pea milk at the
desired pigeon pea solid and water ratio by hot
water grinding. Preparation steps are shown in

Vol 58, No 1 February 2005 International Journal of Dairy Technology 51

 Vol 58, No 1 February 2005
Figure 1 Flow chart for preparation of bulk starter culture.
Figure 2 Flow chart for preparation of pigeon pea milk.
Figure 2. Soy milk was prepared using cleaned, dry
whole soybean grains by following the steps in
Figure. 3.
Experimental design
Response surface methodology (RSM) (Conlon
and Khuri 1988) was used to design the experi-
mental combinations. A second order central com-
52 © 2005 Society of Dairy Technology
Figure 3 Flow chart for preparation of soy milk.
posite rotatable design (CCRD) with augmented
points in five variables at five levels in half repli-
cate was used (Table 1). The coded and uncoded
parameter values for the centre, factorial and aug-
mented point of design are presented in Table 2.
The level of parameters was carefully selected based
on the limited literature available. The coding of
the levels was done using following equations:
X1 (starter culture, %) = (x1 − 5)/1, X2(pigeon pea
solid : water ratio) = (x2 − 0.7)/0.2, X3(pigeon pea
solid : soybean solid ratio) = (x3 − 10)/1, X4(incubation
temperature, °C) = (x4 − 41)/2, and X5(coagulation
temperature, °C) = (x5 − 85)/5
where, X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 and x1, x2, x3, x4, x5 are
coded and uncoded variables, respectively.
 Vol 58, No 1 February 2005

Table 1 Experimental design in codeda form for response surface analysis

Coded variables
Number of
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Combinations Replications experiments
0 0 0 0 0 1 6 6
±1 ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1 16b 1 16
±2 0 0 0 0 2 1 2
0 ±2 0 0 0 2 1 2
0 0 ±2 0 0 2 1 2
0 0 0 ±2 0 2 1 2
0 0 0 0 ±2 2 1 2

a
Code ‘0’ is for centre point of the parameter range investigated, ‘±1’ for factorial
points, and ‘±2’ for augmented points; X1, Starter culture concentration; X2, pigeon pea
solids–soy solids ratio; X3, pigeon pea solids–water ratio; X4 incubation temperature;
X5 coagulation temperature
b
Factorial points were in half replication

Preparation of cheese analogue

For each experiment, pigeon pea and soy milk were
mixed in the desired proportion to make a sample
size of 100 mL in a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask. Skim
milk powder 0.02% (Hang and Jackson 1967a, b),
glucose 0.01% (Yamanaka and Furukawa 1972;
Angeles and Marth 1971) and CaCl2 0.02% (Meta-
walli et al. 1982a) were added to the sample. The
mixture was inoculated with a mixed culture of
S. thermophilus and L. delbrueckii subspp. bulgaricus
at the ratio of 1 : 1 (Kurmann 1967; Mittal et al. 1974;
Caygill and Jones 1981) and incubated overnight.
The samples were taken out and pH was measured
using a digital pH meter (Cole-Parmer Instrument
Company, Chicago). Coagulated samples were
cooked for 15 min at the desired temperature and
then filtered using double-layered muslin cloth.
The cheese analogue was then pressed at a pressure
of about 1 kg/cm2 for 1 h taking into consideration
the uniformity of product quality (Kulshreshtha
et al. 1987). Figure 4 summarizes the steps in
preparation of cheese analogue.
Physico-chemical analysis
The product obtained was analysed for moisture
(AOAC 1984), total solids (AOAC 1984), ash, fat
Figure 4 Flow chart for preparation of cheese analogue.
(AOAC 1984) and protein content of both the
liquid (Lowery et al. 1951) and solid samples
(Kjeldhal method, using Gerhardt Kjeltherm). The
data obtained were regressed to develop empirical
models followed by variable parameters optimiza-
tion for test outputs, namely: total solids recovery
(per cent, d.b.), protein content (per cent, d.b.), fat
content (per cent, d.b.) and pH.
Statistical analysis
Data were analysed using statistical software (min-
itab, mr) to develop response functions. Optimum
process parameters for maximum total solid recov-
ery, protein, fat and minimum pH were calculated
by partially differentiating respective response
surface models with respect to each parameter,
equating to zero and simultaneously solving the
resulting functions. Multiple response package (mr)
optimization software, which takes into account all

Table 2 Coded and uncoded parameter levels

−2 −1 0 1 2
(augmented ( factorial (centre ( factorial (augmented
Experimental parameters form) point) point) point) form)

Starter culture concentration, % (X1) 3 4 5 6 7

Pigeon pea solids–soy solids ratio (X2) 1 : 0.3 1 : 0.5 1 : 0.7 1 : 0.9 1 : 1.1
Pigeon pea solids–water ratio (X3) 1 : 12 1 : 11 1 : 10 1:9 1:8
Incubation temperature, °C (X4) 37 39 41 43 45
Coagulation temperature, °C (X5) 75 80 85 90 95

© 2005 Society of Dairy Technology 53

 Vol 58, No 1 February 2005

Table 3 Responses obtained for different process parameter combinations

Coded variables Uncoded variables

Total solid Protein Fat
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 recovery % content % content % pH

1 1 1 1 1 6 1 : 0.9 1:9 43 90 53.11 48.69 11.70 4.54

−1 1 1 1 −1 4 1 : 0.9 1:9 43 80 60.03 53.25 14.25 4.70
1 −1 1 1 −1 6 1 : 0.5 1:9 43 80 51.53 48.94 11.05 4.65
−1 −1 1 1 1 4 1 : 0.5 1:9 43 90 57.17 45.77 10.86 4.79
1 1 −1 1 −1 6 1 : 0.9 1 : 11 43 80 51.09 47.17 13.79 4.56
−1 1 −1 1 1 4 1 : 0.9 1 : 11 43 90 54.95 46.22 14.57 4.55
1 −1 −1 1 1 6 1 : 0.5 1 : 11 43 90 62.61 44.09 14.27 4.58
−1 −1 −1 1 −1 4 1 : 0.5 1 : 11 43 80 53.88 44.98 12.90 4.50
1 1 1 −1 −1 6 1 : 0.9 1:9 39 80 53.46 44.55 12.84 4.90
−1 1 1 −1 1 4 1 : 0.9 1:9 39 90 59.63 45.99 12.48 4.85
1 −1 1 −1 1 6 1 : 0.5 1:9 39 90 55.52 49.44 12.87 4.87
−1 −1 1 −1 −1 4 1 : 0.5 1:9 39 80 51.46 41.28 10.23 4.90
1 1 −1 −1 1 6 1 : 0.9 1 : 11 39 90 55.17 44.10 13.77 4.83
−1 1 −1 −1 −1 4 1 : 0.9 1 : 11 39 80 53.94 46.64 13.98 4.81
1 −1 −1 −1 −1 6 1 : 0.5 1 : 11 39 80 58.57 44.18 12.00 4.79
−1 −1 −1 −1 1 4 1 : 0.5 1 : 11 39 90 57.62 52.10 15.36 4.72
2 0 0 0 0 7 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 54.33 47.59 12.34 4.74
−2 0 0 0 0 3 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 55.62 44.96 13.48 4.72
0 2 0 0 0 5 1 : 1.1 1 : 10 41 85 54.37 55.93 14.51 4.71
0 −2 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.3 1 : 10 41 85 57.92 49.75 9.35 4.67
0 0 2 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1:8 41 85 52.87 47.53 11.07 4.75
0 0 −2 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 12 41 85 55.78 46.83 12.11 4.74
0 0 0 2 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 45 85 55.99 40.04 12.13 4.64
0 0 0 −2 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 37 85 59.27 41.73 14.00 4.79
0 0 0 0 2 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 95 55.04 44.57 13.59 4.60
0 0 0 0 −2 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 75 56.20 48.39 12.24 4.73
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 54.58 48.28 12.09 4.61
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 56.58 47.78 11.63 4.60
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 57.60 44.21 10.06 4.48
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 52.02 43.42 10.00 4.50
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 56.01 42.68 10.68 4.52
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 : 0.7 1 : 10 41 85 54.57 45.49 10.77 4.51

these steps (Conlon and Khuri 1988) was used for
this purpose. Contours were plotted using a surfer
version 6.04.
R E S U LT S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
Total solid recovery (TSR), protein content, fat con-
tent and pH of the cheese analogue, under different
experimental conditions, as given in Table 3, varied
from 51.09–62.61%, 40.04–55.93%, 9.35–15.36%
and 4.48–4.9, respectively. To optimize the process
parameters, response surface models for the
maximum TSR, protein, fat and minimum pH of
the finished product were developed employing
multiple regression techniques and represented
by equations 1– 4. Analysis of variance (anova) of
equations 1– 4 resulted in coefficients of determi-
nation for TSR, protein content, fat content and pH
of 82.4%, 84.5%, 85.9% and 86.2%, respectively
(Table 4), indicating the adequacy of fit of the
complete second order models with P-values
0.054, 0.033, 0.022 and 0.02 corresponding to
equations 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
Y (% TSR ) = 55.2752 − 0.4250 X1 − 0.5867 X 2 −
0.4892 X 3 − 0.3150 X 4 + 0.8125 X 5* +
1.4888 X1 X 2*** − 1.3575 X1 X 3** − 0.4850 X1 X 4 +
0.1063 X1 X 5 + 1.7550 X 2 X 3*** + 0.3150 X 2 X 4 −
0.8212 X 2 X 5* + 0.2837 X 3 X 4 − 0.2450 X 3 X 5 +
0.0500 X 4 X 5 − 0.1102 X12 + 0.1823 X 22 −
0.2727 X 32 + 0.5535 X 42 + 0.0510 X 52 . . . . . . . . . (1)
Y (% Protein content) = 45.3783 + 0.0079 X1 +
0.7579 X 2 + 0.4096 X 3 + 0.3104 X 4 − 0.0929 X 5 −
0.6319 X1 X 2 + 0.9831X1 X 3 + 0.1506 X1 X 4 −
0.1531X1 X 5 + 0.5169 X 2 X 3 + 1.0794 X 2 X 4* −
1.1644 X 2 X 5* + 1.2469 X 3 X 4** − 0.1044 X 3 X 5 −
1.5344 X 4 X 5** + 0.1730 X12 − 1.8142 X 22*** +
0.3992 X 32 − 1.1745 X 42** + 0.2242 X 52 . . . . . . . . (2)

54 © 2005 Society of Dairy Technology

Vol 58, No 1 February 2005

Table 4 Analysis of variance (anova) of full second-order response surface models 1, 2, 3 and 4

Sources of variation Degree of freedom Sum of squares Mean sum of squares F-value (calculated) P

For response surface model 1 (% total solid recovery)

Regression 20 188.796 9.140 2.58 0.054
Error 11 38.976 3.543
Total 31 221.772
R-square value = 82.4%; Table F-value with degree of freedom (20,11) 0.90 = 2.12.
For response surface model 2 (% protein content)
Regression 20 303.261 15.163 2.99 0.033
Error 11 55.791 5.072
Total 31 359.052
R-square value = 84.5%; Table F-value with degree of freedom (20,11) 0.95 = 2.65.
For response surface model 3 (% fat content)
Regression 20 63.9571 3.1979 3.35 0.022
Error 11 10.4956 0.9541
Total 31 74.4528
R-square value = 85.9%; Table F-value with degree of freedom (20,11) 0.95 = 2.65.
For response surface model 4 (pH)
Regression 20 0.4280 0.0214 3.42 0.020
Error 11 0.0688 0.0063
Total 31 0.4968
R-square value = 86.2%; Table F-value with degree of freedom (20,11) 0.95 = 2.56.

Y (% Fat content) = 10.8664 + 0.1800 X1 + ables, and the combined effect of variables at
0.7442 X 2*** − 0.6725 X 3*** − 0.1492 X 4 + linear, interactive and square level on the responses,
is also given in Table 5. The total effect of starter
0.3267 X 5* − 0.2325 X1 X 2 + 0.2075 X1 X 3 − culture on TSR was found significant (P < 0.05).
0.0937 X1 X 4 + 0.0450 X1 X 5 + 0.3112 X 2 X 3 + This may be attributed to the pigeon pea-rich
0.1825 X 2 X 4 − 0.5263 X 2 X 5** − 0.0800 X 3 X 4 − substrate favouring the culture which developed
0.3788 X 3 X 5 + 0.3950 X 4 X 5 + 0.5149 X1 ** + 2 higher acidity and facilitated coagulation of
substrate, leading to higher TSR. Pigeon pea–
0.2699 X 22 + 0.1849 X 32 + 0.5536 X 42** + soy solids ratio significantly affected total solid
0.5161X 52**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) recovery, protein and fat content at levels of P <
0.05, P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively (Table 5).
Y (pH) = 4.5423 − 0.0025 X1 + 0.0008 X 2 + Pigeon pea–water ratio significantly affected TSR
0.0367 X 3** − 0.0875 X 4*** − 0.0142 X 5 − (P < 0.05) and fat content (P < 0.10), which may
0.0038 X1 X 2 − 0.0288 X1 X 3 − 0.0200 X1 X 4 − be due to more concentration of solids at lower
levels of water. Incubation temperature signific-
0.0050 X1 X 5 − 0.0238 X 2 X 3 − 0.0175 X 2 X 4 −
antly affected pH (P < 0.01) and protein content
0.0200 X 2 X 5 + 0.0075 X 3 X 4 − 0.0075 X 3 X 5 + (P < 0.05) of the product, which is attributed to
0.0113 X 4 X 5 + 0.0427 X12** + 0.0327 X 22** + increased activity of the culture at higher temper-
2 2 2
0.0465 X 3 *** + 0.0390 X 4** + 0.0265 X 5*. . . . . (4) atures within the given range. Coagulation temper-
ature also affected pH and fat content, which may
Further anova (Table 5) indicated that coagula- be due to an increased coagulation rate at higher
tion temperature significantly (P < 0.100) affected temperatures in the selected range. The combined
TSR and fat content positively at linear level. A effect of all parameters on TSR and protein content
similar effect was observed for pigeon pea–water at interactive levels was significant at 5% and 10%
ratio on pH and fat content. Starter culture affected levels of significance, respectively. At linear level,
TSR interactively with pigeon pea–soy solid ratio the combined effect of all parameters was signifi-
(P < 0.01) and pigeon pea–water ratio (P < 0.05). cant (1% level of significance) on pH and fat
Pigeon pea–soy solid ratio and pigeon pea–water content. The combined effect at quadratic level was
ratio interactively affected TSR (P < 0.01). It was observed to be significant on all responses except
observed that all variables except starter culture TSR.
affected protein content significantly at interactive The contour plots in Figures 5–9 were obtained
and square level. The total effect of individual vari- from the predictive models in equations 1–2 of

© 2005 Society of Dairy Technology 55

 Vol 58, No 1 February 2005

Table 5 Analysis of variance for total effect of individual parameter and combined
effect at linear, interactive and square level

Degree of Sum of Mean sum F-value

Parameter freedom squares of squares (calculated)

On total solid recovery

X1 6 73.85 12.31 3.47**
X2 6 106.14 17.69 4.99**
X3 6 89.78 14.96 4.22**
X4 6 17.98 3.00 0.85
X5 6 27.89 4.65 1.31
All linear terms 5 36.56 7.31 2.06
All interactive terms 10 132.84 13.28 3.75**
All square terms 5 13.40 2.68 0.76
On protein content
X1 6 22.83 3.80 0.75
Figure 5 Contour plot between starter culture concentration
X2 6 167.40 27.90 5.50***
and pigeon pea solids and soy solids ratio for total solid
X3 6 55.44 9.24 1.82
recovery.
X4 6 125.92 20.99 4.14**
X5 6 61.59 10.27 2.02
All linear terms 5 20.34 4.07 0.80
All interactive terms 10 129.92 12.99 2.56*
All square terms 5 153.01 30.60 6.03***
On fat content
X1 6 8.06 1.34 1.41
X2 6 23.21 3.87 4.05**
X3 6 15.91 2.65 2.78*
X4 6 11.27 1.88 1.97
X5 6 20.35 3.39 3.56**
All linear terms 5 28.89 5.78 6.06***
All interactive terms 10 13.84 1.38 1.45
All square terms 5 22.23 4.45 4.66**
On pH
X1 6 0.053 0.009 1.41
X2 6 0.039 0.006 1.03
X3 6 0.107 0.018 2.84
X4 6 0.238 0.040 6.29***
X5 6 0.035 0.006 0.93*
All linear terms 5 0.221 0.044 7.02*** Figure 6 Contour plot between starter culture concentration
All interactive terms 10 0.044 0.004 0.70 and pigeon pea solids and water ratio for total solid recovery.
All square terms 5 0.163 0.033 5.16**

Significant at: ***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1

Table 6 Responses at the respective optimum condition

Variables uncoded levels

Responses Value x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
Total solid recovery, % d.b. (TSR) 60.78 6 1 : 0.4 1 : 11 40 88
Protein content, % d.b. (PC) 58.67 5 1 : 1.1 1 : 9.5 42 81
Fat content, % d.b. (FC) 15.98 5 1 : 0.6 1 : 10.9 39 93
pH 4.48 5.2 1 : 0.7 1 : 9.6 43 85

d.b.: day basis

TSR, protein content, respectively, by keeping

three variables at their optimum condition for a Figure 7 Contour plot between pigeon pea solids and soy
higher response. The optimum values for the solids ratio and pigeon pea solids and water ratio for total
desired responses are presented in Table 6. The solid recovery.

56 © 2005 Society of Dairy Technology

 Vol 58, No 1 February 2005

respectively, show increased percentage of TSR.

Figure 8 Contour plot between pigeon pea solids and soy
solids ratio and incubation temperature for protein content.
Figure 9 Contour plot between pigeon pea solids and soy
solids ratio and pigeon pea solids and water ratio for protein
content.
variables TSR and protein content were considered
most important out of the four responses since TSR
is rich in protein, which was the basic criterion
for substituting soy solids by pigeon pea or its
by-products. The contour plots in Figures 5 and 6
of starter culture concentration against pigeon
pea–soy solids ratio and pigeon pea–water ratio,
The effect was more prominent at lower pigeon
pea–soy solids ratios and pigeon pea–water ratios.
At less than middle values of the pigeon pea–soy
solids ratio, pigeon pea–water ratio and starter
culture concentration showed interactive effects
(Figures 5 and 6). The increased TSR was also
observed at lower values of pigeon pea–soy solids
and pigeon pea–water ratios (Figure 7). The con-
tour plot of pigeon pea–soy solids ratio against
incubation temperature indicates higher protein
content at higher levels of the variables (Figure 8).
Higher protein content was also obtained (Figure 9)
at higher levels of pigeon pea–soy solids ratio,
pigeon pea–water ratio and incubation tempera-
ture. This indicates that the optimum conditions for
the higher recovery of protein in the cheese ana-
logue are found at higher concentrations of pigeon
pea and soy solids with optimum incubation at
higher temperature. Metawalli et al. (1982b) also
reported similar trends for soy milk.
The optimum values of all the parameters were
within the range of the parametric value selected,
which showed adequate selection of parameter
ranges. The predicted TSR at optimum conditions
was 64.75%, which was comparable to maxi-
mum solid recovery (Sachdeva and Singh 1988;
Meenakshi and Verma 1994) in milk paneer and
green soy cheese, respectively (Table 6). The pre-
dicted values of pH, fat and protein content at the
respective optimum conditions are 4.48, 16.01%
and 58.25%, respectively. The higher values of
protein and fat in the finished product may be due
to the appropriate processing conditions resulting
in higher TSR.
For selection of the optimum conditions and
range, the models were analysed separately with
all the given set of conditions to get the value of
responses (Table 7). The optimum condition of
percent TSR yielded the desired maximum TSR,
protein, fat and minimum pH. Sensory analysis
(Abbott 1972) of the product prepared at the optimum
condition showed comparable results in terms of
appearance, colour, texture and overall accept-
ability with control obtained from 100% soy milk.
CONCLUSIONS

Table 7 Responses at combined optimum conditions The optimum conditions of process parameters for
maximum total solids recovery were 6.0% starter
At optimum condition for culture concentration, 1 : 0.4 pigeon pea–soy
Response TSR pH PC FC
solids ratio, 1 : 11 pigeon pea–water ratio, 40.5°C
incubation temperature and 88.5°C coagulation
b
Total solid recovery, % d.b. (TSR) 60.78 55.58 57.39 60.45a temperature.
Protein content,% d.b. (PC) 51.21a 43.58 58.67b 50.20
Fat content, % d.b. (FC) 13.94 11.97 14.89a 15.98b
pH 4.50b 4.48a 4.68 4.73 REFERENCES
b
Best result, aSecond best result Abbott, Judith A (1972) Sensory assessment of food texture.
Food Technology 26 40–49.

© 2005 Society of Dairy Technology 57

 Vol 58, No 1 February 2005
Angeles A G and Marth E H (1971) Growth and activity of
lactic acid bacteria in soy milk II. Heat treatment of soy
milk and culture activity. Journal of Milk and Food Tech-
nology 34 63–98.
AOAC (1984) Method of Analysis. Association of Official
Analytical Chemist, Washington, D.C., 14th edn.
Caygill John C and Jones Jains A (1981) Imitation milk from
Cicer arietinun (L.) Vigna unguiculata (L.) waplers and
Vigna radiate (L.) Wilczek and other legumes. Journal of
Science Food Agriculture 32 601–607.
Conlon M and Khuri A I (1988) Multiple Response Optimiza-
tion. Technical Report no. 322. Florida: Department of
Statistics, University of Florida.
Gebre-egziagher A (1983) Preparation of high protein curd
from field peas. Journal of Food Science 48 375–379.
Hallens H L and Milner M (1969) Imitation milk: Problems,
potentials and proposed PAG action, PAG Document,
2.11/10.
Hang Y D and Jackson H (1967a) Preparation of soybean
cheese using lactic starter organism. I. General characteristics
of finished cheese. Food Technology 21 1033–1034.
Hang Y D and Jackson H (1967b) Preparation of soybean
cheese using lactic starter organism. II. Addition of rennet
extract and skim milk powder. Food Technology 21 97–
101.
Kulshreshtha M, Agrawal U S and Singh B P N (1987) Study
of paneer quality in relation to processing conditions.
Journal of Food Science Technology 24 239–242.
Kurmann J (1967) Lait Romand 43 508.
Lowery O B, Roscbrough N J, Fan A L and Randall R J (1951)
Protein measurement with folin phenol reagent. Journal
of Biological Chemistry 193 265–269.
Meenakshi R and Verma N S (1994) Effect of soy milk
supplementation on the coagulation time, green cheese
58 © 2005 Society of Dairy Technology
composition and losses of milk components in whey.
Journal of Food Science and Technology 31 156–158.
Metawalli N H, Shalabi S I and Zahram A S (1982a) The use
of soy milk in soft cheesemaking. I. Effect of soybean
milk on rennet coagulation property of milk. Journal of
Food Technology 17 71–77.
Metawalli N H, Shalabi S I and Zahram A S (1982b) The use
of soy milk in soft cheesemaking. I. Organoleptic and
chemical properties of Domiati cheese made from a
mixture of soy milk and whole milk. Journal of Food
Technology 17 297–305.
Mittal B K, Steinkraus K H and Naylor H B (1974) Growth of
lactic acid bacteria in soy milk. Journal of Food Science
39 1018–1022.
Ofuya C O and Njku H D (1991) Development of cheese-like
product from African yam bean. Food Chemistry 39 197–
204.
Padda G S, Rao K V, Kishri R C, Sharma N and Sharma B D
(1985) Studies on physicochemical and organoleptic
properties of ham paties extended with texturised soy
proteins. Journal of Food Science Technology 22 362–
365.
Rao D R and Pulusani S R (1988) Technical note: preparation
of yogurt-like product from cowpeas and mungbeans.
International Journal of Food Science Technology 23
195–198.
Sachdeva S and Singh S (1988) Optimization of processing
parameters in the manufacture of paneer. Journal of Food
Science Technology 25 142–145.
Yamanaka Y and Furukawa N (1972) Studies on utilization of
soybean protein for food manufacturing II. Influence
of soy milk added to skim milk on the acidity and the
hardness of curd produced by lactic bacteria for dairy use.
Journal of Food Technical Tokyo 17 456–461.