Local honey goat milk yoghurt production. Process and quality control

Abstract

The aim of the present work is to set up a production process of goat milk-based yoghurt. Six (06) kinds of yoghurt have been prepared: a mixed unflavored yoghurt with 50% cow & goat milk, a mixed flavored yoghurt with 50% cow & goat milk, an unflavored 100% goat-milk-based yoghurt, a flavored 100% goat-milk-based yoghurt, two types of 100% goat milk-based yoghurts supplemented with natural honey. Results of bacteriological analyses of finished products showed the total absence of pathogenic bacteria Staphylococcus aureus and salmonella as well as the indicator hygiene bacteria like the fecal and total coliforms. Sensory analyses revealed that 100% goat-milk-based yoghurts are always better appreciated in the other categories (flavored or unflavored) compared to 50% mixed yoghurts. Sensory analyses reported that yoghurts made with honey (HGM1 and HGM2) were richer in carbohydrates (10.5g) and in energy (89.1 kilocalories) against natural yoghurts and flavored yoghurts, which recorded a carbohydrate content of 5.3g and 68.3 kilocalories. The protein contents were assessed at 3.9g. Levels of lipids were at 3.5g together with amounts in minerals such like: calcium, phosphorous, potassium and sodium which reached respectively 168 mg, 114 mg, 203 mg and 58 mg.

Natural bioactive compounds of honey and their antimicrobial activity

“…The antimicrobial potential of honey varies considerably, it mostly depends on the botanical origin of the flowers, geographic source, season, harvest, storage conditions (Irish et al 2011;Anthimidou and Mossialos 2013), age and the health of bee colonies (Ibarguren et al 2010;Aween et al 2012a;Mathialagan et al 2018). Honey composition and physicochemical properties differ according to the floral source (Table 1) used by the bees (Castro-Vázquez et al 2009;Chang et al 2011;Feknous et al 2021).…”

“…Ahmed and Othman (2013) have proven the effectiveness of honey against pathogens that cause mastitis in cows by inhibiting Streptococcus agalactiae, S. aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae (Table 1). Its use thereof as a natural sweetener in probiotic products like fermented dairy products stimulates the growth of lactic bacteria like Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii (Bansal et al 2005;Sanz et al 2005); it also impedes the development of pathogenic bacteria like Shigella, Listeria monocytogenes and S. aureus, thereby aiding in food preservation and consumer protection (Chen et al 2000;Bansal et al 2005;Feknous et al 2021).…”

Discussion on emergency management of food safety from the perspective of foodborne diseases caused by mycotoxins

“…In an investigation conducted by Matumba et al (2016) in Malawi and whether the problem of cheap food is a common phenomenon of food safety problems in countries around the world, and what is the real reason for the promotion, is there a similar reason for the big difference in the price of the same kind of food? And whether the production process and cooking technology will affect the contamination of food by mycotoxins (Feknous et al, 2021;Akman et al, 2022;Cui et al, 2022). These questions need to be answered on the premise of real and accurate data, which also suggests that more relevant investigations and studies are necessary to explore the real cause of food-borne diseases caused by mycotoxins (Matumba et al, 2016;Misihairabgwi et al, 2019).…”