Sensory and nutritional evaluation of ready mix prepared from QPM, Bengal gram and soybean

DOI: 10.5958/0976-0563.2015.00032.9    | Article Id: DR-880 | Page : 160-163
Citation :- Sensory and nutritional evaluation of ready mix prepared from QPM, Bengal gram and soybean.Asian Journal Of Dairy and Food Research.2015.(34):160-163
Rekha Sinha and Bindu Sharma sinharekha_05@yahoo.co.in
Address : Department of Home Science, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi -834 006, India.

Abstract

Finger millet, QPM, Bengal gram and soybean were blended in different proportions to prepare low cost and nutritious ready to eat snack. The product is similar to ‘sattu’ a traditional snack of North India. Product developed was analyzed for sensory evaluation, chemical composition and shelf-life. Chemical analysis of the products revealed that protein, fat, ash and fiber content of the treatment ready mixes varied from 18.25 – 19.92%, 6.15 – 6.89%, 2.84 – 3.03% and 2.30 – 3.16%, respectively. Micro nutrient profile of treatment ready mixes were found superior. Shelf – life studies indicated that treatment ready mixes could be safely stored in metallic containers up to 45 days during summer season. Results of sensory evaluation showed that finger millet fortified up to 40% were well accepted

Keywords

Acceptability Finger millet QPM Ready mix Shelf-life Soybean.

References

  1. AOAC (1985). Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists 14th edition, Washington DC.
  2. AOAC (1990). Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists 16th edition, Washington, DC.
  3. Chen, P.S; Tosikbara, T.Y and Warner, H. (1956). Micro determination of phosphorous. Anal chem.28: 1756-1759.
  4. Deshpande, S.D; Bargale, P.C; Joshi, K.C; Singh, V and Varghese, S. (2004) Enhancing the nutritive value of Barley based sattu by Soy fortification. Indian J Nutr Dietet. 41:146 – 159.
  5. Deshpande, S.S; Joshi, KC, Bargale, P.C; Jha, K; Singh, V and Varghese, S. (2004) Development, Acceptability and shelf – life studies of soy – fortified maize sattu. J Food Sci Technol. 41(6): 674 – 678.
  6. Gopalan, C; Ramasastry, B; Manian, S.C. (2000). Nutritive Value of Indian Foods, National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Hyderabad, India.
  7. ISI, IS: 7837. (1975). specification for edible full fat soy flour. Bureau of India Standards, New Delhi.
  8. Lawless, H.T and Kelin, B.P. (1991). Sensory science theory and application in foods. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York.
  9. Lindsay, W.L and Norwell, M.A. (1969). A new DPTA – TEA soil test for zinc and iron, Agron Abstract. 61: 84-85.
  10. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1961). Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. 2nd edn. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
  11. Rangana, S. (1986). Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruit and Vegetable Products (Tata Mc Graw Hill Publishing Co. New Delhi) .
  12. Rawat, A; Singh, G; Mittal, B.K and Mittal, S.K. (1994). Effect of soy fortification on quality characteristics of chapaties. J Food Sci. Technol. 31: 114 – 116.
  13. Singh, G; Sehgal, S and Kwatra, A. (2006). Sensory and nutritional evaluation of cake developed from blanched and malted pearl millet. J Food Sci Technol. 43 (5)(2006) 505 – 508.
  14. Wadikar D.D; Vasudish, C.R; Prema, Valli K.S and Bawa, A.S. (2006). Effect of variety and processing on antinutrients in finger millet. J Food Sci Technol. 43(4): 370 – 373).

Global Footprints