Allgeyer 2010
Allgeyer 2010
Allgeyer 2010
ABSTRACT: Several studies have addressed the sensory properties of yogurt. However, as the market for yogurt
continues to expand and new varieties of yogurt with novel ingredients emerge, additional sensory tests are needed
to ensure the quality of the products. Three selected prebiotics, soluble corn fiber, polydextrose, and chicory inulin,
were each added at an excellent source of fiber (5 g fiber/serving) or a good fiber source (2.5 g fiber/serving) lev-
els into a yogurt drink base. Three additional yogurt drinks contained 5 g of each of the separate prebiotics along
with a mixture of probiotics (Bifidobacterium lactis Bb-12 and Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5). A control sample
with no prebiotics or probiotics was also included in the experimental design. Yogurt drinks were evaluated by
110 consumers for overall acceptance, acceptance of aroma, appearance, taste, and texture, and purchase intent.
Demographic information pertaining to consumer knowledge of prebiotics and probiotics was collected. Consumer
data were correlated with previously obtained descriptive analysis data to identify drivers of liking. Data were ana-
lyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD), cluster analysis, internal preference
mapping, and external preference mapping. Total variance explained by the internal and external preference maps
were 32.2% and 64.6%, respectively, which showed higher levels of the prebiotics with probiotics drove consumer lik-
ing compared to lower levels without probiotics. In terms of ingredients added, chicory inulin and polydextrose were
preferred over soluble corn fiber. Yogurt drinks with these prebiotics included and probiotics were characterized by
a medium level of sweetness and high viscosity. Development of new prebiotic and probiotic containing drinkable
yogurts should strive for a medium level of sweetness and high viscosity for maximum consumer acceptance.
Keywords: consumer acceptance, descriptive analysis, prebiotics, probiotics, yogurt
Y ogurt drinks are highly desired by consumers due to their human health are numerous with strain specific effects shown in
S: Sensory & Food
healthy, convenient, and portable characteristics. Manufactur- many of the studies performed (Sanders and others 2007).
ers are also finding the yogurt drink market attractive due to the Prebiotics are nondigestible food ingredients that benefit the
Quality
opportunities available for providing value-added ingredients in a host by assisting microbiota to grow and flourish (Gibson and
beverage system (Douaud 2007). The sensory properties of yogurt Roberfroid 1995). Many forms of dietary fiber exhibit prebiotic ef-
has been frequently studied (Chandan and others 2006); however, fects and several of these fibers are sought out by dairy manufac-
literature is deficient with regard to the sensory properties of yo- turers to be included in their products; therefore, instrumental and
gurt drinks, especially those with added prebiotics and probiotics. sensory testing of the fibers is critical when introducing them into
Thompson and others (2007) determined natural strawberry fla- products. Synbiotics is the combination of both probiotics and pre-
vor/aroma and sweet taste to be key drivers of commercial straw- biotics in a food product, in which prebiotics stimulate the health
berry yogurt drinks when evaluated by different ethnic consumer effects of probiotics (Gibson and Roberfroid 1995).
groups in the United States. Similar to this study, it was found The health benefits of foods containing live active cultures have
that acceptability for yogurt drinks varies widely among consumers been studied for centuries (Lourens-Hattingh and Viljoen 2001;
(Thompson and others 2007). Shah 2007). Researchers originally identified the capability and ad-
America’s growing interest in nutrition and health has con- vantage of yogurt to transport live and active cultures such as lactic
tributed to an increase in sales of yogurt and products with pre- acid bacteria into a host (Lourens-Hattingh and Viljoen 2001). Since
biotics and probiotics (Douaud 2007). Probiotics are classified as then, the realm of healthful ingredients that can be included in this
live microorganisms that when administered in sufficient amounts optimum carrier food has expanded; making yogurt drinks an ideal
confer a health benefit on the host (FAO/WHO 2001), and they vehicle for probiotics and prebiotics.
have been widely studied for both human and animal applications. The objective of this study was to determine the drivers of lik-
While the addition of various probiotic strains have shown to not ing of yogurt drinks through descriptive profiling and consumer
affect the flavor or consumer perception of dairy products (Hekmat testing when novel prebiotics and commercially available probi-
and Reid 2006), they have shown to improve the balance of micro- otics are included in the drink. A consumer test was conducted,
biota in the human body which can result in physiological benefits first, to evaluate the consumer’s overall acceptance and their ac-
ceptance of the aroma, appearance, texture, taste, and purchase in-
MS 20090902 Submitted 9/12/2009, Accepted 1/31/2010. Authors Allgeyer, tent of the various yogurt drink formulations. Data pertaining to
Miller, and Lee are with Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Univ.
of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 905 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801, consumer frequency of consuming yogurt and their awareness of
U.S.A. Author Miller is also with Div. of Nutritional Sciences, Univ. of Illi- the health effects of prebiotics and probiotics were also collected in
nois Urbana-Champaign, 905 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL, 61801, U.S.A. a demographic questionnaire. Descriptive analysis was performed
Direct inquiries to author Lee (E-mail: soolee@illinois.edu).
by a trained panel to determine the significant differences across
doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01579.x
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
Drivers of liking for yogurt drinks . . .
the drinks. The consumer and descriptive data were correlated to based on their varying degree of researched health benefits, un-
identify drivers of liking of the yogurt drinks. known sensory properties in a yogurt drink model, and availabil-
ity. Soluble corn fiber is a relatively new food ingredient with a very
Materials and Methods limited publication history. Inulin is perhaps the most widely stud-
ied prebiotic and is widely used in commercial yogurts. While poly-
Development of yogurt drink dextrose has been used as a bulking agent in many foods, it is only
and experimental design recently that the prebiotic properties of polydextrose have been ex-
Total of 10 yogurt drinks were evaluated by the descriptive plored. Each prebiotic agent was present at a low level and a high
and consumer panels. Prepasteurized and homogenized skim milk level based on the amount of fiber it contained. A low level corre-
(Schnucks Skim Milk, Schnucks Market Inc., St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A.) sponds to a good source of fiber claim (2.5 g/serving) and the high
was used as the main dairy ingredient. Sucrose (C+H Pure Cane level represents an excellent source of fiber (5 g/serving) as deter-
Sugar Granulated White, C+H Sugar Co. Inc.; Crockett, Calif., mined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA 2008). A
U.S.A.) was then added to the milk at a level of 5%. The dry ingre- serving size of 240 mL was assumed for the product. Three of the 10
dients were then heated and agitated (ThermoMix TM 21, Vorw- yogurt drinks contained the high level of the prebiotics along with a
erk U.S.A. Co; Altamonte Spring, Fla., U.S.A.) at 70 ◦ C for 20 min. mixture of the selected probiotics, Bifidobacterium lactis Bb-12 and
Due to size capabilities of the ThermoMix, 1.5 L batches of yogurt Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5 (BB-12 and LA-5 Nutrish a/B probi-
drink were made each time. Temperature and agitation speed were otic mix, Chr Hansen Inc., Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.A.). A control yo-
consistently monitored for each batch treatment. In the yogurt gurt drink without any prebiotics or probiotics was included in the
drinks with prebiotic inclusion, the ingredient was incorporated af- study design.
ter 10 min of heating. The yogurt drink was cooled in the freezer
(0 to 5 ◦ C) until a temperature of 42 ◦ C was reached. The drink was Subjects for descriptive analysis and consumer test
inoculated with starter cultures at a level of 0.02% w/v. When pro- Total of 13 panelists (4 male, 9 female, ages 21 to 29) participated
biotics were included in the formulation, the usage level of starter on the descriptive panel. Subjects were initially recruited based on
cultures was reduced to 0.01% w/v. Culture amounts were based interest, availability, nonsmoking status, and lack of food allergies.
on manufacturer recommendations to obtain an amount of 108 Subjects were further screened with a basic tastes test where they
cells/g of each probiotic strain (not including starter culture) in were asked to identify the taste associated with 6 different basic
the finished product which was confirmed using selective plating taste solutions at low concentrations and to identify the bitter taste
(Allgeyer 2009). The starter cultures were a mix of Streptococcus associated with the 6-n-propyl-2-thiouracil (PROP) test according
thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus (F- to Zhao and others (2003). Subjects who identified 3 out of the
DVS YC-X11- Yo-Flex, Chr Hansen Inc.; Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.A.). 6 basic taste solutions correctly and who correctly identified the ba-
After inoculation, the yogurt drink was agitated for 30 min while sic taste in the PROP test were further asked to participate on the
maintaining a temperature of 42 ◦ C. The product was placed in an panel.
incubator (Isotemp Standard Incubator 637D, Fisher Scientific; Total of 110 consumers (31 male and 79 female, 18 to 65 years
Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S.A.) for fermentation at 42 ◦ C until pH 4.3 to old) were recruited through email and flyers posted around The
Quality
ural and artificial vanilla flavor (Natural & Artificial Vanilla Flavor of consuming yogurt, consumers were asked to participate in the
Powder Lot# S090833, Flavors of North America-FONA; Geneva, Ill., yogurt test. Subjects who consumed yogurt at least once every 2 wk
U.S.A.) was added to the yogurt drink at a level of 0.20% w/v. After were selected for this study. During the session, consumers signed
the final agitation step, the yogurt was poured into bleach sanitized an informed consent form and also were asked to complete a de-
mason jars (1L, Hearthmark Inc.; Muncie, Ind., U.S.A.), and refrig- mographic questionnaire. Upon completion of the session, con-
erated for at least 24 h before serving. sumers received an 8 dollar gift certificate to the Bevier Café. Bevier
Table 1 depicts the different yogurt drinks by percentage of pre- Café is a student ran restaurant located on the Univ. of Illinois at
biotics included in the formulation. Three prebiotics were used in Urbana-Champaign campus.
this study including: polydextrose (Litesse II Super Improved Poly-
dextrose FCC, Danisco U.S.A. Inc., Ardsley, N.Y., U.S.A.), chicory in- Descriptive panel training and sample evaluation
ulin (Beneo GR, ORAFTI Active Food Ingredients; Tienen, Belgium), The 13 panelists selected for the descriptive panel participated in
and soluble corn fiber (PROMITOR Soluble Corn Fiber, Tate & Lyle; 20 one-hour sessions of panel training. Initially, panelists focused
Decatur, Ill., U.S.A.). These prebiotics were selected for the study on term generation and were gradually introduced to references.
Table 1 --- Experimental design of yogurt sensory study for 10 total treatments.
Without probiotics
With Probiotics (LA-5 &
Polydextrose Soluble corn Chicory inulin Bb-12)b
(PDX)a fiber (SCF)a (Inulin)a
PDX SCF Inulin
90% Fiber 66% Fiber 89% Fiber +Pro +Pro +Pro
Control Low High Low High Low High High High High
Levels of 0 1.23 2.45 1.70 3.34 1.24 2.48 2.45 3.34 2.48
prebioticsc (%)
a
Abbreviations for treatments are given in parenthesis for the treatments without probiotics.
b
LA-5 Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bb-12 Bifidobacterium lactis.
c
Amounts of prebiotics used were dependent on the percent of fiber in the prebiotic to allow for the claims of a good source of fiber (2.5 g/serving) or an excellent
source of fiber (5 g/serving) (FDA 2008).
Further in training, the panel refined and defined the generated at- on their liking (Fraley and Raftery 1998). Each consumer starts a
tributes and began scaling. Subsequently, they moved on to the in- cluster of their own and the closest clusters are merged together.
dividual booth training before final evaluation of the yogurt drinks. The groups are, then, truncated at a certain level of dissimilarity
Table 2 illustrates the final terms, definitions, references, and ref- that best defines each cluster. To produce the external preference
erence intensities used by the panel for evaluation of the yogurt map, first a principal component map is generated from the de-
drinks. scriptive panel’s evaluation, thus the products and attributes were
The final evaluation of the yogurt drinks was completed in in- placed on the biplot as evaluated by the trained panel. Next, over-
dividualized booth setting and over the duration of 2 one-hour all acceptance ratings of the consumers are regressed onto the plot
sessions, in which panelists evaluated each yogurt drink product (van Kleef and others 2006). Internal preference map converts con-
presented in the design (Table 1) in duplicate. Each attribute was sumer acceptance scores into a set of preference dimensions where
evaluated on a 16-point category scale that ranged from 0 to 15. individual acceptance scores represent vectors that show directions
Samples were served monadically at a temperature of 0 to 5 ◦ C of increasing preference (MacFie 2007).
in 59.1 mL cups (Solo Cup Co., Urbana, Ill., U.S.A.) labeled with a
3-digit random code. Panelists were instructed to first rinse with Results and Discussion
carbonated water then cold water before tasting each sample and
to expectorate after rinsing and tasting. Data were collected using Demographic results from consumer study
the Compusense R
five data acquisition system (version 4.8, Com- When asked how frequently they consume prebiotic/probiotic
pusense, Ontario, Canada). yogurt, consumers identified that they were more aware of con-
suming yogurt with probiotics compared to yogurt with prebiotics
Consumer panel evaluation (Figure 1). Approximately 37% of consumers reported consuming
The consumer test was conducted in individualized booth set- yogurt with prebiotics several times a month or more and 42% re-
ting with incandescent lighting and at room temperature (approx- ported the same for probiotic yogurt. Approximately 55% of con-
imately 24 ◦ C). Each consumer participated in 2 sessions over a sumers did not remember, were not aware, or have never purchased
45-min time period. The consumers evaluated each of the 10 yo- prebiotic yogurt, whereas only 37% of consumers fell into this cat-
gurt drinks (Table 1) first for overall acceptance to eliminate any egory for probiotic yogurt. American’s awareness of functional in-
bias that may result after rating individual attributes (Popper and gredients, such as prebiotics and probiotics, is underdeveloped
others 2004). Consumers, then, had a 6 min break, which was used compared to European knowledge (Stanton and others 2001).
to fill out the demographic questionnaire. On the demographic While the key focus in the United States for the past several years
questionnaire, consumers were asked to identify their frequency has been vitamin and mineral fortification, many European coun-
of consuming yogurt with prebiotics and probiotics and to identify tries have centered their attention on the investigation and health
their awareness of the health effects of probiotics and prebiotics. benefits of prebiotic and probiotic dairy foods (Stanton and oth-
Several health effects were listed and consumers were given the ers 2001). Only recently have Americans begun to investigate these
option to select more than 1 based on their familiarity of the in- functional foods.
gredients. After their break, they completed the 2nd session, which The consumers who were aware of consuming yogurt with pre-
S: Sensory & Food
included evaluating each sample again for their overall acceptance biotics and probiotics were also asked to indicate their awareness of
of the appearance, aroma, texture, and taste of the yogurts. Lastly, the health properties of probiotics and prebiotics. If panelists were
Quality
consumers indicated their purchase intent. Samples were served familiar with more than one health effect, they were encouraged
monadically to maintain a constant cool temperature (0 to 5 ◦ C) to check multiple. Greater than 45% of consumers were cognizant
and were served in 59.1 mL cups (Solo Cup Co.). Panelists were of probiotics and their ability to assist in the prevention and or
instructed to rinse with carbonated water first followed by cold treatment of diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome, to enhance the
water before each sample evaluation. Evaluation was conducted immune system, and to cause an alteration of the intestinal micro-
using Compusense R
five data acquisition system (version 4.8, biota (Figure 2). 57% of consumers were aware that prebiotics had
Compusense). Overall acceptance and attribute questions were an impact on intestinal flora and 47% of consumers knew prebi-
evaluated using a modified version of a 9-point hedonic scale otics serve as an additional source of fiber (Figure 3). 18% and 0%
(Peryam and Pilgrim 1957) with anchors at the end of the scale with of consumers claimed that they have heard negative health effects
“extremely dislike” and “extremely like” as left and right anchors, re- about probiotics and prebiotics, respectively (Figure 2 and 3).
spectively. Purchase intent was evaluated using a 5-point scale with
“definitely will not buy” and “definitely will buy” as end anchors. Consumer test results
Samples were presented in a balanced order based on the mutu- Table 3 compares the mean acceptance ratings for all 10 yogurt
ally orthogonal latin squares (MOLS) design (Wakeling and MacFie products. For overall acceptance, the inulin with probiotics drink
1995). was liked the most followed by the polydextrose with probiotics and
high inulin drink. In general, yogurt drinks with a higher level of
Statistical analyses prebiotics and yogurt drinks with the inclusion of probiotics were
Descriptive analysis and consumer test data were analyzed us- liked the most. The control drink and soluble corn fiber drink at
ing analysis of variance (ANOVA) by the general linear model (GLM) the low level were the least accepted. In regards to the appear-
procedure and the mean separation test by the Fisher’s least signif- ance and aroma of the products, the polydextrose drink was signif-
icant difference (LSD) with a 95% confidence level (Statistical Anal- icantly (α = 0.05) preferred over the other drinks. The soluble corn
ysis Software [SAS] version 9.1, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C., U.S.A.). fiber beverage at the low prebiotic level was significantly less liked
Internal and external preference mapping and agglomerative hi- for its appearance. All 3 of the prebiotic drinks at the higher level
erarchical cluster analysis were conducted using XLSTAT version were liked significantly (α = 0.05) more than at their lower level in
2008 (Addinsoft USA, New York, N.Y. , U.S.A.). The agglomerative hi- regards to texture. Yogurts with prebiotics have been shown to pro-
erarchical clustering method is based on statistical level of dissim- vide better body and texture than yogurts without prebiotics as de-
ilarity and assumes that consumers fall into distinct groups based termined by consumers (Aryana and McGrew 2007). The texture of
Figure 2 --- Awareness of 110 consumers of the health ef- Figure 3 --- Awareness of 110 consumers of the health ef-
fects of probiotics. fects of prebiotics.
Table 3 --- Acceptance ratings of 110 consumers for overall acceptance and acceptance for appearance, aroma, tex-
ture, taste, and purchase intent for yogurt drinks with prebiotics and probiotics. Acceptance ratings were evaluated
using a 9-point hedonic scale. Purchase intent was evaluated on a 5-point scale.
Sample Overall Appearance Aroma Texture Taste Purchase intent
Control 5.23cd 6.03abc 6.28ab 5.61c 5.35c 2.63de
PDXA LowD 5.3bc 6.25a 6.32ab 5.65c 5.62abc 2.73bcde
PDX HighD 5.68ab 6.22a 6.50a 5.85abc 5.73ab 2.88abc
SCFB Low 4.88d 5.75c 6.26abc 5.50c 5.29c 2.57e
SCF High 5.38bc 6.15ab 6.44ab 5.70bc 5.55bc 2.84abcd
Inulin Low 5.53abc 5.91bc 6.19bc 5.68bc 5.58abc 2.71cde
Inulin High 5.80a 6.17ab 6.28ab 5.83abc 5.84ab 2.97a
PDX+ProC 5.81a 6.04abc 6.35ab 6.04ab 5.79ab 2.95ab
SCF+Pro 5.66ab 5.98abc 6.03c 5.80abc 5.78ab 2.83abcd
Inulin+Pro 5.88a 6.10ab 6.29ab 6.15a 5.90a 2.95ab
Means with the same letter within each column are not significantly different at α = 0.05 as determined by Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) mean separation
test.
A
Polydextrose.
B
Soluble corn fiber.
C
Probiotics.
D
Amount of prebiotics used was dependent on the percent of fiber in the prebiotic to allow for the claims of a good source of fiber (2.5 g/serving) or an excellent
source of fiber (5 g/serving) (FDA 2008). Refer to Table 1 for the actual amount of prebiotics included in each of the treatments.
36 consumers, who were best described as “likers” of the yogurt the other products. These beverages had very few consumers lo-
drinks. They rated most of the yogurt drinks above 6 for overall ac- cated around them which signify that only a few consumers pre-
ceptance. An average rating of above 6 on a 9-point hedonic scale ferred them over the other drinks; they were also identified as
is considered to be acceptable (IMO 2002). Cluster 2 had 64 con- the lowest rated products by the largest consumer cluster group
sumers, who rated the yogurt drinks similar to the overall mean (Cluster 2) in the cluster analysis. Besides these 2 products, it is con-
acceptance ratings of the total consumer panel. Cluster 3 had the cluded from the internal preference map that there were not dras-
smallest number of consumers in it, 10, and they did not seem to tic differences among the consumer’s overall acceptance ratings of
prefer or like any of the yogurt drinks except the drinks with inulin the products. Overall, products with higher levels of prebiotics with
with probiotics and polydextrose with probiotics. probiotics were liked the most.
Internal preference mapping was conducted on the overall
acceptance of the yogurt drink products (Figure 6). The biplot ex- Descriptive analysis results
plained 32.22% of the total variation of the data. Factor 1 and 2 ac- A total of 7 of the 12 attributes generated by the panel were found
counted for 17.54% and 14.69% of the data, respectively. The lowest to be significantly different (α = 0.05) across the yogurt drinks.
scored products (soluble corn fiber low and control drink), in terms These 7 attributes included clover honey aroma, buttermilk aroma,
of overall acceptance, were separated from the other products on butter aroma, sweetness, sourness, chalky mouthfeel, and viscous
the plot, which demonstrates how different they were compared to mouthfeel.
Figure 4 ---
Agglomerative
hierarchical clustering
(AHC) of 110
consumers by overall
acceptance ratings for
yogurt drinks with
prebiotics and
probiotics on the
dissimilarity scale by
Euclidean distance
and agglomeration by
the Ward’s method.
The dotted line on the
dendrogram was
computed within the
software and is
located at the node
before the largest
relative increase in
dissimilarity level.
of the beverage, possibly by altering the texture. A drink with prebi- manufactured with inulins of various chain lengths and Lactobacillus acidophilus.
J Food Sci 72:M79–84.
otics and probiotics can therefore drive preference and present ad- Barnes DL, Harper SJ, Bodyfelt FW, McDaniel MR. 1991. Prediction of consumer ac-
ditional health benefits beyond what traditional ingredients such ceptability of yogurt by sensory and analytical measures of sweetness and sourness.
as sweeteners and milk powders can provide. J Dairy Sci 74:3746–54.
Chandan RC, White CH, Kilara A, Hui YH. 2006. Manufacturing yogurt and fermented
The main objective of this study was to determine the sensory milks. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing.
impact of probiotics and prebiotics in yogurt drinks. However, it Douaud C. 2007. Yogurt drinks are leading food and beverage product, ACNielsen.
NutraIngredients-USA.com Consumer Trends.
is possible to hypothesize possible mechanisms for how the pre- FAO/WHO. 2001. Health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food including
biotics and probiotics altered the sensory properties of the yogurt powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Con-
sultation on Evaluation of Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food
drinks. The prebiotics may have altered the sensory properties of Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria.
the yogurt drinks directly (Guggisberg and others 2009). Addition- [FDA] Food and Drug Administration. 2008. Food labeling guide: appendix b: addi-
tional requirements for nutrient content claims. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.
ally, inulin has been shown to alter starter culture fermentation gov/∼dms/2lg-xb.html. Accessed Feb 2008.
rates, survivability, organic acid concentrations, and degree of pro- Fraley C, Raftery AE. 1998. How many clusters? Which clustering method? Answers via
model-based cluster analysis. The Computer J 41:578–88.
teolysis (Ramchandran and Shah 2008) so it is possible that inulin Fuller R. 1991. Probiotics in human medicine. Gut 32:439–42.
and the other prebiotics impacted the starter culture contributing Gibson GR, Roberfroid MB. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human colonic micro-
biota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J Nutr 125:1401–12.
to sensory changes as well. Prebiotics have been shown to increase Guggisberg D, Cuthbert-Steven J, Piccinali P, Bütikofer U, Eberhard P. 2009. Rheo-
the growth and/or survivability of probiotics in yogurts, (Ozer and logical, microstructural and sensory characterization of low-fat and whole milk set
yoghurt as influenced by inulin addition. Int Dairy J 19:107–15.
others 2005; Aryana and McGrew 2007; Aryana and others 2007) yet Hekmat S, Reid G. 2006. Sensory properties of probiotic yogurt is comparable to stan-
prebiotics did not alter probiotic growth or survivability in our yo- dard yogurt. Nutr Res Rev 26:163–6.
gurt drinks (Allgeyer 2009). Regardless of the mechanism, proper [IOM] Inst. of Medicine. 2002. High-energy, nutrient-dense emergency relief food
product. Washington, D.C.: Natl. Academy Press. 117 p.
addition of prebiotic(s) and/or probiotic(s) can result in a yogurt Kappes S, Schmidt S, Lee SY. 2006. Color halo/horns and halo-attribute dumping ef-
drink preferred by consumers. fects within descriptive analysis of carbonated beverages. J Food Sci 71:590–5.
Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1997. Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices.
N.Y.: Chapman & Hall.
Lourens-Hattingh A, Viljoen BC. 2001. Yogurt as probiotic carrier food. Int Dairy J
Conclusions 11:1–17.
Y ogurt drinks fortified with value-added ingredients such as MacFie H. 2007. Preference mapping and food product development. In: Hal Mac-
Fie, editor. Consumer-led food product development. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
prebiotics and probiotics can positively affect consumer per- 551 p.
ception of the product. Although demographic results determined Ozer D, Akin S, Ozer B. 2005. Effect of inulin and lactulose on survival of Lactobacillus
acidophilus La-5 and Bifidobacterium bifidum Bb-02 in acidophilus-bifidus yogurt.
that consumers are not aware of yogurts that contain prebiotics Food Sci Tech Int 11:19–24.
and probiotics, consumers are conscious of the health significance Peryam D, Pilgrim P. 1957. Hedonic scale method for measuring food preferences.
Food Technol 11:9–14.
of these ingredients. Correlation of the descriptive and consumer Popper R, Rosenstock W, Schraidt M, Kroll B. 2004. The effect of attribute questions
study through external preference mapping demonstrated how on overall liking ratings. Food Qual Prefer 15:853–8.
Ramchandran L, Shah NP. 2008. Growth, proteolytic, and ACE-I activities of Lacto-
consumers’ preferences vary for yogurt drink products and how im- bacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus and rheological
portant it is for yogurt manufacturers to provide several varieties of properties of low-fat yogurt as influenced by the addition of Raftiline HP. J Food Sci
73:M368–74.
products to target the vast number of users and likers of yogurt- Sanders M, Gibson G, Gill H, Guarner F. 2007. Probiotics: their potential to impact
type products. From the products in this study, it was determined
Quality
preferred by consumers. Such a product can be achieved through Market potential for probiotics. Am J Clin Nutr 73:476S.
the addition of prebiotics and probiotics. Thompson JL, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. 2007. Preferences for commercial strawberry
drinkable yogurts among African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic consumers in
the United States. J Dairy Sci 90:4974–87.
Van Kleef E, Van Trijp HCM, Luning P. 2006. Internal versus external preference anal-
References ysis: an exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Qual Prefer 17:387–99.
Allgeyer LC. 2009. Sensory and microbiological quality of yogurt drinks with prebi- Wakeling IM, MacFie H. 1995. Designing consumer trials balanced for first and higher
otics and proiotics. In Masters Thesis: Sensory profiling of yogurt drinks with prebi- orders of carry-over effect when only a subset of k samples from t may be tested.
otics and probiotics. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Food Qual Prefer 6:299–308.
Aryana KJ, McGrew P. 2007. Quality attributes of yogurt with Lactobacillus casei and Zhao L, Kirkmeyer SV, Tepper BJ. 2003. A paper screening test to assess genetic taste
various prebiotics. LWT Food Sci Technol 40:1808–14. sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Physiol Behav 78:625–33.
Aryana KJ, Plauche S, Rao RM, McGrew P, Shah NP. 2007. Fat-free plain yogurt