1) Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ; 2) Department of Food Processing, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ
Binnur Kaptan1), Serap Kayisoglu2)
In this study, antioxidant activity, total phenolic content, microbiological content, sensory evaluation and consumer preferences of both standard and probiotic cultured yogurts prepared by adding 15% strawberry or blackberry puree as forest fruit were examined.
In standard yogurt production, Streptococcus thermophilus (S. thermophilus) and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus (L. bulgaricus) cultures, Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5 (L. acidophilus) and Bifidobacterium bifidum BB-12 (B. Bifidum) cultures were used in the production of probiotic yogurt.
As a result of the analyzes performed on all yogurt samples on the 1st, 7th, 14th and 21st days; It was determined that antioxidant activity and total phenolic content were higher in probiotic yogurt with strawberry puree. Both forest berry purees added to the probiotic yogurt effectively supported the growth of probiotic bacteria. Notably, the probiotic bacteria number in the strawberry-added PSY yogurt sample reached maximum values of 8.11 log cfu/g for L. acidophilus and 7.58 log cfu/g for B. bifidum on the 7th day. Blackberry puree added probiotic yogurt with received the highest score in the sensory evaluation made by trained panelists. In terms of consumer preferences, both standard and probiotic yogurts with blackberry puree added were preferred more than control and strawberry puree yogurt samples.
In addition, in this study, it was determined that in addition to improving the functional properties in fruit yogurt production, the selection of fruit types to be added is important in terms of sensory evaluation and consumer preferences.
Keywords: probiotic yogurt, forest berries, antioxidant activity, phenolic content, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum
bkaptan@nku.edu.tr
Arch Lebensmittelhyg 75,
77–85 (2024)
DOI 10.53194/0003-925X-75-77
© M. & H. Schaper GmbH & Co.
ISSN 0003-925X