Received: 27 April 2019 Revised: 4 October 2019 Accepted: 5 November 2019

DOI: 10.1111/jfpe.13324

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Millet milk: A comparative study on the changes in nutritional

quality of dairy and nondairy milks during processing and
malting

Aruna Nair U. K. | Vincent Hema | V. R. Sinija | S. Hariharan

Ministry of Food Processing Industries,
Government of India, Indian Institute of Food
Processing Technology, Thanjavur,
Tamil Nadu, India
Correspondence
Vincent Hema, Indian Institute of Food
Processing Technology, Ministry of Food
Processing Industries, Government of India,
Pudukkottai Road, Thanjavur 613005,
Tamil Nadu, India.
Email: mariagorretti@iifpt.edu.in
Abstract
The effect of different processing like pasteurization, chilling, freezing, cooling and
hardening on the protein and fat content of millet milk in comparison to that of dairy
milk and plant milk such as coconut milk was studied. When compared to dairy milk,
the millet milk showed higher energy (383 kcal) and comparable level of carbohy-
drates (78%). While the millet milk has higher crude fiber (0.9%) than dairy milk
(0.73), it has lesser fiber content than coconut milk (2.26%). Owing to its mineral con-
tent, millet milk also exhibited high ash content (0.35%). The low temperature pro-
cesses resulted in a very slight reduction of protein (8.5–7.8%) and fat content
(0.74–0.6%) when compared to that of unprocessed millet milk (9.1%) yet it still
stood much higher than that of dairy milk (2.4–1.8% protein and 1.2–1.1% fat) even
after being processed. There was also an increase in TSS and a decrease in viscosity
with lower temperatures. Malted milk showed an increase in protein and fiber con-
tent whereas an increase in ash content. The malting process proves beneficial since
it results in a product with increased protein and decreased fat levels.

Practical applications
When considering a millet milk as a replacement for dairy milk, the replacement capa-
bility of the millet milk should be studied in order to know in which kind of products
it can be applied. Toward the same purpose, it is essential to study the changes in
nutritional quality through processing at different temperatures. Since nutritional as
well as pH, TSS and viscosity play the major role right from flavor to texture in case
of milk products, they were studied upon mainly in this case.

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N
Lactose intolerance, although was considered to be belonging to the
first world countries, is now a widespread reality, reaching the popula-
tion around the globe. More specifically, the condition among infants
lactose sugar viz., inability to digest the lactose sugar. The rise in lac-
tose intolerant population highlights the need and scope for seeking
alternatives for dairy milk (Vesa, Marteau, & Korpela, 2000).
The nondairy milk alternatives are developed from plant sources and
can be sourced from cereals, legumes, nuts, seeds, pseudo-cereals and so

is most common in Finland, whereas cases of adulthood lactose intol-
erance is most commonly found among East Asians (Harrington &
Mayberry, 2008; He et al., 2008; Heyman, 2006). The condition of
lactose intolerance is caused due to genetic deficiency in lactase
enzyme in certain people. This makes them intolerant toward the
on (Sethi, Tyagi, & Anurag, 2016). The cereal based milk can include milk
from oats (Bernat, Cháfer, González-Martínez, Rodríguez-García, &
Chiralt, 2015; Deswal, Deora, & Mishra, 2014), rice (Massa et al., 2001) or
corn (Kolapo & Oladimeji, 2008) while legumes such as soy, peanut, and
chickpea (Isanga & Zhang, 2009; Li, Wei, Wu, Rui, & Dong, 2016) are used
too. Milks from nuts are very common ranging from almond, hazelnut,

J Food Process Eng. 2019;e13324. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfpe © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1 of 7

https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13324
2 of 7
and walnut—coconut and almond being the most common sources
(Belewu & Belewu, 2007). While seeds such as hemp (Vahanvaty, 2009)
are used for plant milks, the pseudo cereals such as quinoa are also used
as sources for plant milks (Pineli et al., 2015).
Inspite of all these variety of choices being available, when it comes
to applicability in replacing the dairy milk in its various forms, which
involves treatments at low and high temperatures, many of these
sources fail. Tester and Karkalas (1996) studied the cereal based milks,
especially oats to find that they contained starch enough to cause gela-
tinization on thermal treatments. This changes the physical properties
of milks significantly which further restricts its use in various nondairy
foods. In the case of Soy milk, although the market has already been
established and was among the first to be introduced to the market
of nondairy milks, soy allergy and the off flavor it possesses, poses a
major problem to its further scopes as a dairy replacement (Fukui,
Tachibana, & Wanezaki, 2002). So any nondairy milk with an acceptable
sensory quality and protein content can compete with soy milk in the
market for dairy alternatives, because they do not pose the risks of
allergy or off flavor. The same goes for the milks derived from the nuts
as nut allergy is highly prevalent (Sicherer, Burks, & Sampson, 1998).
When these factors are considered, millets stand to be good
source for dairy alternatives. Being high in protein, lesser starch con-
tent and of mild flavor, it makes up for the lacuna found in other
sources. Millets are widely cultivated, and are known to thrive well
with less maintenance, making it an ideal crop to be used as a dairy
replacement through value addition. Millets in India are cultivated in
29 million hectares annually (Prakasha, Murthy, Prathima, & Meti,
2018). It is also one of the underutilized crops and needs to be diversi-
fied through value addition. Millet milk is one such product.
Millet milk is mainly preferred due to its nutritional superiority
over other sources of plant milks. It is high in protein, but also low in
calories (Raajeswari & Nithya, 2016). This makes it an ideal replace-
ment for dairy especially in the current scenario where high nutrition
and low calorie foods are preferred. But studies need to be done on
the applicability of the millet milk to different types of food wherein it
is subjected to various kinds of processing at different temperatures.
Most of the flavor compounds are fat soluble and fat–protein interac-
tions create a platform for the flavor reactions to take place (Lopez,
2005). Moreover, flavor and texture are highly influenced by fat con-
tent of the food (Drewnowski, 1997). Protein–fat interactions play a
major role in emulsifying activity hence making them the two major
components that influence the processing of milk and milk products
(Jost, 1993). Hence, it is necessary to study the changes in nutritional
content during processing. This paper deals with the effect of
processing on the nutritional quality and its comparison with other
plant milk and dairy milk.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
The millets were procured from the local markets of Thanjavur. Cow's
milk was used as a dairy source to compare with the millet milk (non-
dairy milk). Coconut milk was used as a nondairy milk source to
NAIR U. K. ET AL.
compare with the millet milk under the same treatment conditions.
Malted millet milk was used to study the effect of malting on the qual-
ity of the millet milk. The millet milk and coconut milk were extracted
using conventional methods as described as follows. Millet was
soaked for 8–12 hr and ground in a colloidal ball mill and filtered using
a filter press to get a clarified liquid which is millet milk. One batch of
malted millet milk was also included in the study wherein the germi-
nated millets (kept for germination for 24 hr at 25–30 C) were used
in the place of raw millets. Coconut milk was prepared by shredding
the coconut kernel using a coconut shredder and grinding it in the col-
loidal ball mill followed by filtering using a filter press to get the coco-
nut milk. Raw milk was procured from a local dairy farm at Thanjavur.
All the milk samples were subjected to various low and high tem-
perature treatments described as follows. Pasteurization was done in
the steam jacketed kettle at 63 C for 30 min. Chilling and freezing were
carried out in a refrigerator at 4 C for 4 hr and −5 C to −6 C for 4 hr,
respectively. Cooling and Hardening were done using individual deep
freezers set at −18 C for 4 hr and −28 C for 8 hr, respectively.
The samples after each treatment were analyzed for nutritional
content (carbohydrates, protein, fat, crude fiber, ash, moisture con-
tent, and energy) according to AOAC methods. pH was measured
using a calibrated pH meter and TSS was measured using digital
refractometer. Viscosity was measured using Brookefield viscometer
with 64S spindle at 100 rpm.
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The processes involved were high temperature process such as pas-
teurization and low temperature processes such as chilling, freezing,
cooling, and hardening, all compared against unprocessed dairy and
nondairy milks. The effect of processing on the nutritional content of
dairy and nondairy milks have been tabulated in Table 1.
3.1 | Nutritional composition of unprocessed millet
milk in comparison with that of dairy milk and
coconut milk
The unprocessed millet milk showed 3 times more protein (9.17%)
than dairy milk (2.84%) and 4.5 times more protein than coconut milk
(2.02%) whereas it showed 1.7 times lesser fat (0.68%) than dairy milk
(1.19%) and 3 times lesser fat than coconut milk (2.26%).
When compared to dairy milk, the millet milk showed higher
energy (383 kcal) and comparable level of carbohydrates (78%). While
the millet milk has higher crude fiber (0.9%) than dairy milk (0.73), it
has lesser fiber content than coconut milk (2.26%). Owing to its min-
eral content, millet milk also exhibited high ash content (0.35%).
3.2 | Effect of malting and other processing methods
on the nutritional content
The low temperature processes resulted in a very slight reduction of
protein (8.59–7.8%), and fat content (0.74–0.6%) when compared to
NAIR U. K. ET AL. 3 of 7

TABLE 1 Effect of processing on the nutritional content of the dairy and nondairy milk samples

Processing condition Temperature involved Millet milk Malted millet milk Cow milk Coconut milk
Protein (%)
Unprocessed 32 C 9.17±0.062 9.69±0.033 2.84 ± 0.066 2.02 ± 0.021

Pasteurization 63 C 7.91±0.020 9.14±0.017 1.84 ± 0.014 1.24 ± 0.016
Chilling 4 C 8.59±0.067 8.89±0.028 2.42 ± 0.012 1.68 ± 0.020
Freezing −5 to −6 C 8.19±0.018 8.46±0.017 2.18 ± 0.097 1.615 ± 0.035
Cooling −18 C 7.80±0.017 7.95±0.005 1.84 ± 0.017 1.57 ± 0.015
Hardening −28 to −35 C 7.96±0.008 8.19±0.020 1.97 ± 0.012 1.59 ± 0.007
Fat (%)
Unprocessed 32 C 0.68±0.016 0.6±0.005 1.19 ± 0.012 2.26 ± 0.012
Pasteurization 63 C 0.64±0.009 0.46±0.016 1.14 ± 0.017 1.92 ± 0.020

Chilling 4 C 0.74±0.012 0.62±0.008 1.20 ± 0.014 2.13 ± 0.005
Freezing −5 to −6 C 0.66±0.016 0.58±0.012 1.15 ± 0.022 2.09 ± 0.030

Cooling −18 C 0.63±0.021 0.55±0.021 1.07 ± 0.016 1.86 ± 0.015
Hardening −28 to −35 C 0.60±0.012 0.54±0.012 1.14 ± 0.009 1.94 ± 0.010
Moisture (%)
Unprocessed 32 C 9.733 ± 0.097 10.41 ± 0.188 10.21 ± 0.017 27.61 ± 0.514

Pasteurization 63 C 10.14 ± 0.233 7.4 ± 0.208 12.97 ± 0.286 37.15 ± 0.521
Chilling 4 C 10.31 ± 0.174 6.21 ± 0.292 11.80 ± 0.055 22.07 ± 0.231

Freezing −5 to −6 C 10.90 ± 0.041 7.21 ± 0.051 13.38 ± 0.133 18.25 ± 0.123
Cooling −18 C 9.64 ± 0.160 8.36 ± 0.156 11.86 ± 0.187 21.17 ± 0.382
Hardening −28 to −35 C 8.21 ± 0.049 12.28 ± 0.071 11.66 ± 0.130 22.08 ± 0.170
Ash (%)
Unprocessed 32 C 0.35 ± 0.009 0.05 ± 0.012 0.25 ± 0.024 0.13 ± 0.042
Pasteurization 63 C 0.29 ± 0.005 0.02 ± 0.005 0.33 ± 0.012 0.09 ± 0.005

Chilling 4 C 0.24 ± 0.012 0.003 ± 0.005 0.45 ± 0.020 0.28 ± 0.024
Freezing −5 to −6 C 0.23 ± 0.005 0.006 ± 0.005 0.43 ± 0.022 0.33 ± 0.020

Cooling −18 C 0.23 ± 0.008 0±0 0.45 ± 0.029 0.17 ± 0.017
Hardening −28 to −35 C 0.24 ± 0.016 0±0 0.48 ± 0.031 0.27 ± 0.017
Crude fiber (%)
Unprocessed 32 C 0.9 ± 0.016 0.97 ± 0.055 0.73 ± 0.014 2.26 ± 0.160

Pasteurization 63 C 0.65 ± 0.009 0.69 ± 0.025 0.84 ± 0.012 2.17 ± 0.041
Chilling 4 C 0.86 ± 0.028 1.12 ± 0.054 0.45 ± 0.025 1.99 ± 0.029
Freezing −5 to −6 C 0.33 ± 0.020 0.75 ± 0.024 0.46 ± 0.022 2.07 ± 0.037
Cooling −18 C 0.31 ± 0.054 0.59 ± 0.026 0.23 ± 0.017 1.23 ± 0.093
Hardening −28 to −35 C 0.32 ± 0.065 0.58 ± 0.040 0.26 ± 0.037 1.22 ± 0.074
Carbohydrates (%)
Unprocessed 32 C 78.727 ± 0.015 78.72 ± 0.023 84.78 ± 0.005 65.72 ± 0.005
Pasteurization 63 C 79.32 ± 0.014 83.34 ± 0.061 82.88 ± 0.009 57.43 ± 0.005

Chilling 4 C 79.08 ± 0.076 83.337 ± 0.038 83.68 ± 0.012 71.85 ± 0.064
Freezing −5 to −6 C 79.5 ± 0.026 83.184 ± 0.042 82.4 ± 0.013 75.645 ± 0.042
Cooling −18 C 81.32± 82.62 ± 0.051 84.55 ± 0.024 74 ± 0.022
Hardening −28 to −35 C 82.5± 78.58 ± 0.005 84.49 ± 0.042 72.9 ± 0.009
Energy (kcal)
Unprocessed 32 C 383.108 ± 0.003 380.96 ± 0.028 336.15 ± 0.028 269.02 ± 0.017

Pasteurization 63 C 383.74 ± 0.009 393.04 ± 0.017 322.66 ± 0.022 230.4 ± 0.024
(Continues)
4 of 7
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Processing condition Temperature involved Millet milk

Chilling 4 C 380.26 ± 0.012
Freezing −5 to −6 C 378.4 ± 0.025

Cooling −18 C 382.31 ± 0.042
Hardening −28 to −35 C 388.42 ± 0.041
Note: Data represented in the table are in the form of mean ± SD, n = 3.
that of unprocessed millet milk (9.17%) yet it still stood much higher
than that of dairy milk (2.42–1.84% protein and 1.2–1.07% fat) even
after being processed. The protein content shows less changes with
each processing because the alteration in temperature is reversible
causing a repeptization upon bringing to normal temperature or
thawing, in case of hydrophilic sols (Webb & Hall, 1935). But lower
the temperature, tougher it is for normalizing upon thawing. Hence,
the decreasing trend is shown for protein in the current study is justi-
fied. In case of fat, it is present as an emulsion with a layer of protein
adsorbed on it. This layer of protein provides a protective effect caus-
ing only a partial disruption in the emulsion. But once the protein layer
gets disturbed, as discussed above, the emulsion can be accessed and
destructed resulting in the changes in fat content (Doan & Baldwin,
1936). Changes in temperature can bring about changes in interaction
between fat globules and protein (Lopez, 2005). At the low tempera-
tures during thorough crystallization, the fat content tends to accumu-
late toward the upper layer of the frozen sample. Meanwhile, the
protein tends to aggregate toward the middle layer and sugars to
the bottom layer of the mass that is frozen. Now, the fat content in
the milk during this phase is highly influenced by the sampling portion.
Moreover, the layers get miscible due to the reconstitution occurring
during thawing, resulting in redistribution in the components during
further cooling. This results in an increase or decrease in the fat and
protein percentage (Cvitl, 1931; Iviantoyani, 1933; Koenig, 1930;
Munkwitz, By, & Boye, 1933). The fact that low fat foods are more
NAIR U. K. ET AL.
Malted millet milk Cow milk Coconut milk
397.208 ± 0.036 331.64 ± 0.069 291.21 ± 0.014
393.516 ± 0.018 325.83 ± 0.006 307.27 ± 0.015
389.43 ± 0.021 332.83 ± 0.012 299.02 ± 0.042
373.36 ± 0.024 333.62 ± 0.007 295.3 ± 0.022
F I G U R E 1 Effect of processing on
the pH of dairy and nondairy milk samples
affected by temperature involved processes (but mainly heat shocks)
(Prindiville, Marshall, & Heymann, 1999) backs up the observation that
the fat separation was more in case of millet (malted and unmalted)
milk during processing because it is a low fat milk. Homogenization is
recommended in such kind of milks to lower the fat separation.
Malted milk showed a higher protein content (9.7%) and lower
fat content (0.6%) when compared to that of unmalted milk. The
increase in protein content can be attributed to the decrease in
moisture content during the germination process with a subsequent
reduction in total solid loss as it gets transferred to the embryo, as
pointed out by Bera, Sabikhi, and Singh (2018). Similar results in
other grains have been shown in the studies of Warle, Riar, Gaikwad,
and Mane (2015) and Kindiki, Onyango, and Kyalo (2015). A study
by Fasasi in 2009 (Fasasi, 2009) inferred that the increase in protein
content could be due to protein synthesis for the embryo during the
process, which supports our current results. The increase in protein
could also be because of the stored nitrogen content getting mobi-
lized during the malting process (Gernah, 2011). Crude fiber has
been shown to increase during malting which could be due to the
building up of the dry matter for supplementing the growth of
embryo (Laxmi, 2015; Vasantharuba, 2013). The slight decrease in
fat could be attributed to the possibility of fatty acid oxidation and
lipid hydrolysis during malting (Choudhury, 2011; Lorenz, 1980;
Maria Victória & Grossmann, 1998). The decrease in ash content can
be related to the translocation of nutrients to the growing root and
NAIR U. K. ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Effect of processing on
the TSS of dairy and nondairy milk
samples
F I G U R E 3 Effect of processing on
the viscosity of dairy and nondairy milk
samples
shoot followed by leaching during processing (Muhammad Arif,
2011; Sankararao & Deosthale, 1980). This is why malted millet milk
showed a very low ash content and lost the same during subsequent
processing. Hence, malting proves to be beneficial for enhancing the
nutritional content of the millet milk.
3.3 | Effect of processing on the pH, TSS, and
viscosity
Figure 1 shows the effect of processing on the pH of the samples. It is
evident from the graph that on an overall pH remains unaffected.
5 of 7
There is a slight decrease in the pH followed by increase. This hap-
pens in milk and the small increase is because the amount of potas-
sium salt that is precipitable was small. pH increases can also be
caused due to increase in protein concentration in the phase that
remains unfrozen. This may happen during the thawing stage before
measurement of pH. Figure 2 shows the effect of processing on TSS
of the samples. This can be attributed to the concentration that
occurs due to crystal formation at low temperatures. Figure 3 shows
the effect of processing on the viscosity of the samples. While the
sudden increase in viscosity during much lower temperatures can be
attributed to the concentration process as mentioned in the TSS part,
6 of 7
malting plays a different effect on viscosity. Malted milk shows a
lower viscosity than unmalted milk. This is because the soaking and
malting process leads to higher fragility of the kernel which makes it
easy to break during the grinding process. The fragile kernel affects
the Water Absorption Index negatively as pointed out by (Maria
Victória & Grossmann, 1998). This makes malted millet milk a better
choice for weaning foods.
4 | CO NC LUSIO N
The alternatives for dairy milk is being actively seeked by the lactose
intolerant population. Dairy milk is also rich in calories and fat which
hold true for coconut milk also. In such aspects, millet milk stands to
be a better choice being high in protein, energy, ash and carbohy-
drates and low in fat content, when compared to coconut milk and
dairy milk. From the current study, it is evident that millet milk main-
tains its stability in nutritional content under high and low processing
temperatures. This makes it suitable for application in many foods as a
replacement for dairy milk. Considering the low cost of raw material,
availability, ease of processing, ease of cultivation and nutritional con-
tent, millet milk proves to be a better alternative for coconut milk and
highly beneficial to the farmers being a value added product.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T
The authors acknowledge Indian Institute of Food Processing Tech-
nology, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India, for providing the infrastructure
to carry out this work.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Aruna Nair U. K. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9109-641X
V. R. Sinija https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8679-6123
RE FE R ENC E S
Belewu, M. A., & Belewu, K. Y. (2007). Comparative physico-chemical eval-
uation of tiger-nut, soybean and coconut milk sources. International
Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 5, 785–787.
Bera, S., Sabikhi, L., & Singh, A. K. (2018). Assessment of malting character-
istics of different Indian barley cultivars. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 55(2), 704–711.
Bernat, N., Cháfer, M., González-Martínez, C., Rodríguez-García, J., &
Chiralt, A. (2015). Optimisation of oat milk formulation to obtain fer-
mented derivatives by using probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri microor-
ganisms. Food Science and Technology International, 21(2), 145–157.
Choudhury, M. (2011). Nutritional evaluation of popped and malted indig-
enous millet of Assam. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 48,
706–711.
NAIR U. K. ET AL.
Cvitl, J. (1931). Influence of freezing on some ingredients and properties
the milk. Dairy Research, 12, 409.
Deswal, A., Deora, N. S., & Mishra, H. N. (2014). Optimization of enzymatic
production process of oat milk using response surface methodology.
Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(2), 610–618.
Doan, F. J., & Baldwin, F. B. (1936). Observations on the freezing of milk
and cream II. The destruction of the fat emulsion in frozen cream. Jour-
nal of Dairy Science, 19(4), 225–233.
Drewnowski, A. (1997). Why do we like fat? Journal of the American Die-
tetic Association, 97(7 Suppl), S58-S62.
Fasasi, O. S. (2009). Proximate, antinutritional and functional properties of
processed pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Journal of Food Technol-
ogy, 7(3), 92–97.
Fukui, K., Tachibana, N., & Wanezaki, S. (2002). Isoflavone free soy protein
prepared by column chromatography reduces plasma cholesterol in
rats. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(20), 5717–5721.
Gernah, D. I. (2011). Effect of malting and lactic fermentation on some
chemical and functional food use. Food Chemistry, 6(5), 32–38.
Harrington, L. K., & Mayberry, J. F. (2008). A re-appraisal of lactose intoler-
ance. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 62(10), 1541–1546.
He, T., Venema, K., Priebe, M. G., Welling, G. W., Brummer, R. J., &
Vonk, R. J. (2008). The role of colonic metabolism in lactose intoler-
ance. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 38(8), 541–547.
Heyman, M. B. (2006). Committee on nutrition. Lactose intolerance in
infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics, 118(3), 1279–1286.
Isanga, J., & Zhang, G. (2009). Production and evaluation of some physico-
chemical parameters of peanut milk yoghurt. LWT-Food Science and
Technology, 42(6), 1132–1138.
Iviantoyani, A. (1933). A new cold industry solidified milk. Magazine of the
Faculty of Industrial and Agricultural Chemistry. Vol. III.
Jost, R. (1993). Functional characteristics of dairy proteins. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 4, 283–288.
Kindiki, M. M., Onyango, A., & Kyalo, F. (2015). Effects of processing on
nutritional and sensory quality of pearl millet flour. Food Science and
Quality Management, 42, 13–19.
Koenig, W. (1930). Freezing and frozen milk. Dairy Newspaper. Hildesheim,
17:289.
Kolapo, A. L., & Oladimeji, G. (2008). Production and quality evaluation of
soy-corn milk. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 1(2), 40–45.
Laxmi, G. (2015). The impact of malting on nutritional composition of fox-
tail millet, wheat and chickpea. Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences, 5
(5), 1–3.
Li, W., Wei, M., Wu, J., Rui, X., & Dong, M. (2016). Novel fermented chick-
pea milk with enhanced level of γ-aminobutyric acid and neuro-
protective effect on PC12 cells. PeerJ, 4, e2292.
Lopez, C. (2005). Focus on the supramolecular structure of milk fat in dairy
products. Reproduction Nutrition Development, 45, 497–511.
Lorenz, K. (1980). Cereal sprouts: Composition, nutritive value, food applica-
tions. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 13, 353–385.
Maria Victória, E., & Grossmann, J. M. (1998). Chemical composition and
functional properties of malted corn flours. Brazilian Archives of Biology
and Technology, 41(2).
Massa, G., Vanoppen, A., Gillis, P., Aerssens, P., Alliet, P., & Raes, M.
(2001). Protein malnutrition due to replacement of milk by rice drink.
European Journal of Pediatrics, 160(6), 382–384.
Muhammad Arif, J. A. (2011). Effect of soaking and malting on the selected
nutrient profile of barley. Pakistan Journal of Biochemistry and Molecu-
lar Biology, 44(1),18–21.
Munkwitz, R. C., By, M. H., Boye, W. C. (1933). Some effects of freezing
on the physical and nutritional properties of milk. Maryland Agricul-
tural Experiment Station Bulletin, 344.
Pineli, L. D. L. D. O., Botelho, R. B., Zandonadi, R. P., Solorzano, J. L., de
Oliveira, G. T., Reis, C. E. G., & Teixeira, D. D. S. (2015). Low glycemic
index and increased protein content in a novel quinoa milk. LWT-Food
Science and Technology, 63(2), 1261–1267.
NAIR U. K. ET AL.
Prakasha, G., Murthy, K. N. K., Prathima, A. S., & Meti, R. N. (2018). Effect of
spacing and nutrient levels on growth attributes and yield of finger mil-
let (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn) cultivated under guni planting method in
red sandy loamy soil of Karnataka, India. International Journal of Current
Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(5), 1337–1343.
Prindiville, E. A., Marshall, R. T., & Heymann, H. (1999). Effect of milk fat
on the sensory properties of chocolate ice cream. Journal of Dairy Sci-
ence, 82, 1425–1432.
Raajeswari, P. A., & Nithya, M. (2016). Standardization of value added rec-
ipes with millet milk powder. Research & Reviews: Journal of Food Sci-
ence and Technology, 5(2), 10–17.
Sankararao, D. S., & Deosthale, Y. C. (1980). Effect of pearling on mineral
and trace element composition and ionizable iron content of sorghum.
Nutrition Reports International, 22(5), 723–726.
Sethi, S., Tyagi, S. K., & Anurag, R. K. (2016). Plant-based milk alternatives
an emerging segment of functional beverages: A review. Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 53, 3408–3423.
Sicherer, S. H., Burks, A. W., & Sampson, H. A. (1998). Clinical features of
acute allergic reactions to peanut and tree nuts in children. Pediatrics,
102(1), e6–e6.
Tester, R. F., & Karkalas, J. (1996). Swelling and gelatinization of oat
starches. Cereal Chemistry, 73(2), 271–277.
Vahanvaty, U. S. (2009). Hemp seed and hemp milk: The new super foods?
ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent Nutrition, 1(4), 232–234.
7 of 7
Vasantharuba, S. B. (2013). Effect of malting on nutritional contents of
fingermillet and mungbean. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural
and Environmental Sciences, 13(12),1642–1646.
Vesa, T. H., Marteau, P., & Korpela, R. (2000). Lactose intolerance. Journal
of the American College of Nutrition, 19(sup2), 165S–175S.
Warle, B. M., Riar, C. S., Gaikwad, S. S., & Mane, V. A. (2015). Effect of ger-
mination on nutritional quality of barley. International Journal of Food
Sciences and Nutrition, 4, 59–63.
Webb, B. H., & Hall, S. A. (1935). Some physical effects of freezing upon
milk and cream. Journal of Dairy Science, 18, 275–286.
YG, S. R. (1980). Effect of pearling on mineral and trace element composition
and ionizable iron content of sorghum. Nutrition Reports Interna-
tional, 723.
How to cite this article: Nair U. K. A, Hema V, Sinija VR,
Hariharan S. Millet milk: A comparative study on the changes
in nutritional quality of dairy and nondairy milks during
processing and malting. J Food Process Eng. 2019;e13324.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13324