Search for a command to run...
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the physicochemical properties, proximate composition, and sensory attributes of plant-based ice creams produced from soybean, tigernut, and coconut milks. The different plant milks were extracted by blending each base with water at a 1:3 ratio for 5 minutes, followed by filtration through muslin cloth. Ice cream mixes were prepared, and homogenized, pasteurized at 85°C for 30 minutes, and cooled to 4°C. The mixes were frozen at −5°C for 30 minutes to obtain the respective ice creams. The samples were labeled A (coconut milk ice cream), B (soy milk ice cream), and C (tigernut ice cream), while cow milk ice cream (sample D) served as the control. Physicochemical properties, proximate composition and sensory properties analysis of the samples were determined using standard methods. The pH, overrun, viscosity and sugar content ranged from 4.28-5.12, 37.93-42.86%, 2.71-2.90 Pa.s, and 21.00-26.01 °Brix, respectively. The melting rate of the samples ranged from 1.60-5.18% at 10 minutes, 1.68-75.70% at 20 minutes, and 67.20-100.00% at 30 minutes, with soybean ice cream showing the least melting rate. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the proximate composition of the samples, except for the total carbohydrate content. Moisture content, crude protein, crude fat, ash, and total carbohydrate contents of the ice cream samples ranged from 56.00-65.40%, 0.148-0.481%, 1.09-5.99%, 1.55-5.20%, and 18.47-18.62%, respectively. Sensory evaluation results showed no significant differences (p>0.05) in colour (6.80-7.70), flavour (6.40-7.90), thickness (6.40-7.70) and aftertaste (6.30-7.20) between plant-based ice creams and the control. This study showed that soybean, tigernut, and coconut milks are suitable for producing high-quality plant-based ice creams with favourable sensory and nutritional profiles. These products are particularly recommended for lactose-intolerant consumers and those seeking reduced-cholesterol dessert options.
Published in: American Journal of Food Science and Technology
Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 60-67