ABSTRACT

The quest for healthy diets has provided great opportunity for product innovation. Yoghurt samples were produced from Almond nut milk, Cow milk and their blend. From the sensory analysis, the appearance of the samples got score values that ranged 3.15 in Unsweetened Almond/Cow milk Yoghurt to 8.30 in the Hollandia yoghurt (control sample). In a similar way, the aroma of the samples had scores values that ranged from 3.95 in unsweetened almond/cow milk yoghurt to 8.25 in Hollandia yoghurt while the taste had between 3.60 and 8.05 also in unsweetened almond/cow milk yoghurt and Hollandia yoghurt respectively. The score range of 3.30-7.20 for mouth feel and 3.20-7.85 for acceptability was also recorded for unsweetened almond/cow milk yoghurt and Hollandia yoghurt respectively. ln the proximate analysis, the dry matter content ranges froml8.51% — 32.83% in unsweetened cow milk yoghurt and sweetened almond nut milk yoghurt respectively while Moisture content of the samples varied from 67.17% found in sweetened almond nut milk yoghurt to 81.49% found in unsweetened cow milk yoghurt. Sweetened almond nut milk yoghurt recorded low crude protein of 0.77% while unsweetened cow milk yoghurt was highest with 3.93%. Crude fat content ranges from 0.55% - 0.93% in Sweetened almond nut milk yoghurt and Sweetened almond/cow milk yoghurt respectively, while total ash content varied from 1.25% - 2.10% respectively in Unsweetened cow milk yoghurt and Sweetened almond/cow milk yoghurt. There was no recordable crude fibre in all samples whereas carbohydrate content ranges from 13.15% - 26.37% in Unsweetened cow milk yoghurt and Sweetened almond nut milk yoghurt respectively. The mineral analysis indicated considerable quantities of minerals like Potassium, Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc and Iron. The microbial load analysis indicated the presence of lactic acid bacteria (Streptococcus and Lactobacilius) in various proportions but absence of yeast. Thus almond nut milk proved a good substitute for cow milk in yoghurt making