| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Dairy Science Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings 57007
Nonfat and low fat yogurts are soft, low in solids, and exhibit whey separation unless they are heavily stabilized. In this study, the quality of nonfat (9.55 to 10.39% total solids) and low fat (13.40%) yogurts that had been fortified with ultrafiltered sweet buttermilk or buttermilk powder was compared with that of a control yogurt that had been fortified with nonfat dry milk. The titratable acidity and pH of low fat yogurts were higher than those of nonfat yogurts. Low fat yogurt that had been fortified with ultrafiltered sweet buttermilk had the highest pH and titratable acidity. As shearing speed increased, the apparent viscosity of yogurts decreased, indicating a shear thinning property. At a high shearing speed, shearing time had little effect on the apparent viscosity. Nonfat yogurts with tested ingredients were similar to the control in flavor, appearance, texture, aroma, smoothness, and sourness. At a high level of fortification, ultrafiltered sweet buttermilk lacked typical yogurt flavor but had good appearance. The microstructures of nonfat yogurts were more open than those of low fat yogurts, possibly because of the higher protein contents of the latter. Ultrafiltered sweet buttermilk yielded the densest matrix. The addition of up to 4.8% sweet buttermilk powder to low fat yogurt mixes yielded a soft and smooth product.
Key Words: nonfat yogurt • low fat yogurt • ultrafiltration • buttermilk
Submitted on February 13, 1998
Accepted on June 8, 1998
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Aziznia, A. Khosrowshahi, A. Madadlou, and J. Rahimi Whey Protein Concentrate and Gum Tragacanth as Fat Replacers in Nonfat Yogurt: Chemical, Physical, and Microstructural Properties J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2008; 91(7): 2545 - 2552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Jinjarak, A. Olabi, R. Jimenez-Flores, I. Sodini, and J. H. Walker Sensory evaluation of whey and sweet cream buttermilk. J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2006; 89(7): 2441 - 2450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Sodini, P. Morin, A. Olabi, and R. Jimenez-Flores Compositional and Functional Properties of Buttermilk: A Comparison Between Sweet, Sour, and Whey Buttermilk J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2006; 89(2): 525 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Corredig, R. R. Roesch, and D. G. Dalgleish Production of a Novel Ingredient from Buttermilk J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2003; 86(9): 2744 - 2750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Y. Y. Wong and D. D. Kitts A Comparison of the Buttermilk Solids Functional Properties to Nonfat Dried Milk, Soy Protein Isolate, Dried Egg White, and Egg Yolk Powders J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2003; 86(3): 746 - 754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
