Starch-based texturizers for low protein yogurt

Abstract

Disclosed herein is at least one low protein yogurt composition comprising at least one dairy ingredient, dairy alternative ingredient, or mixture thereof, and a texturizing agent comprising an inhibited starch and a non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch, wherein said low protein yogurt comprises less than 2.9% dairy protein content, and at least one method for making these low protein yogurt compositions. Also disclosed herein is a texturizing agent comprising an inhibited starch and a non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch.

Claims

1. A low protein yogurt composition comprising: a. at least one dairy ingredient, dairy alternative ingredient, or mixture thereof; and b. a texturizing agent comprising an inhibited starch and a non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch, wherein said low protein yogurt composition comprises less than 2.9% dairy protein content by weight of said composition.

2. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition comprises an effective amount of said texturizing agent to thicken, gel, or thicken and gel the low protein yogurt composition.

3. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition further comprises water.

4. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition further comprises a viscosity of at least about 4000 centipoise, and wherein said texturizing agent is a viscosifier and said composition comprises an effective amount of the texturizing agent to provide the viscosity.

5. The composition according to claim 4, wherein said viscosity is measured according to a viscosity measurement test at 4°C.

6. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition further comprises a gel strength of at least about 13 grams, from about 13 grams to about 400 grams, from about 13 grams to about 200 grams, from about 13 grams to about 100 grams, from about 15 grams to about 50 grams, from about 20 grams to about 45 grams, from about 22 grams to about 45 grams, or from about 25 grams to about 42 grams; and wherein said composition comprises an effective amount of said texturizing agent to provide said gel strength.

7. The composition of claim 6, wherein the gel strength is measured according to a gel strength measurement test at 4°C.

8. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition further comprises an opacity of at least about 0.500 A, from about 0.500 A to about 0.850 A, or from about 0.550 A to about 0.800 A, wherein said composition comprises an effective amount of said texturizing agent to provide said opacity.

9. The composition of claim 8, wherein the opacity is measured according to the yogurt opacity measurement test after refrigeration of the composition.

10. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition comprises a dairy protein content of less than or equal to about 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, or 2.8% by weight of the composition.

11. The composition of claim 1, wherein the inhibited starch and non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch are present in the texturizing agent in a weight ratio of at least 1.0:1.0, about 3.0:1.0, or about 1.0:1.0 to about 4.0:1.0.

12. The composition of claim 1, wherein the non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch has a dextrose equivalent of about 10.0 or less, from about 2.0 to about 9.0, from about 2.5 to about 8.0, from about 3.0 to about 7.0, from about 3.5 to about 5.0, or from about 4.0 to about 5.0.

13. The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition comprises the texturizing agent in an amount of about 10.0% or less, about 0.5% to about 10%, about 0.5% to about 8.0%, about 1.5% to about 7.0%, about 2.0% to about 6.0%, or about 3.0% to about 5.0%, by weight of the composition.

14. The composition of claim 1, wherein the texturizing agent is the sole texturizing agent in the composition.

15. The composition of claim 1, with the proviso that said composition does not contain at least one other texturizing agent or with the proviso that said texturizing agent is the sole texturizing agent in the composition.

16. The composition of claim 1, wherein the non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch is debranched with an α-1,6-D-glucanohydrolase.

17. The composition of claim 16, wherein the α-1,6-D-glucanohydrolase is an isoamylase, pullulanase, or combination thereof.

18. The composition of claim 1, wherein the non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch is partially debranched.

19. A method of making a low protein yogurt composition comprising less than 2.9% dairy protein content by weight of said composition, wherein said method comprises: a. mixing together at least one dairy or alternative dairy ingredient, a texturizing agent comprising an inhibited starch and a non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch, and, optionally, water, to form a yogurt base, and b. culturing the yogurt base, wherein said texturizing agent is present in an effective amount to thicken, gel, or thicken and gel the low protein yogurt composition.

20. A low protein yogurt composition containing a texturizing agent comprising an inhibited starch and a non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch, wherein the weight ratio of the inhibited starch to the non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch is at least 1.0:1.0, about 3.0:1.0, or from about 1.0:1.0 to about 4.0:1.0, and wherein the non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch has a dextrose equivalent of about 10.0 or less, from about 2.0 to about 9.0, from about 2.5 to about 8.0, from about 3.0 to about 7.0, from about 3.5 to about 5.0, or from about 4.0 to about 5.0wherein said texturing agent is present in an effective amount to thicken, gel or thicken and gel, the low protein yogurt composition, and the composition comprises less than 2.9 % dairy protein content by weight of said composition.

Description

EXAMPLES

(1) The yogurt compositions disclosed herein are described in more detail in the following non-limiting examples. All amounts, parts and percentages in the specification and claims are by weight, unless noted otherwise.

Methods and Materials

(2) 1.a. Production of Enzymatically-Debranched Waxy Potato Starch

(3) A starch slurry for the enzymatic reaction was prepared by suspending 1.5 kg of waxy potato starch (ELIANE™ 100 waxy potato starch, available from Avebe, Veendam. The Netherlands) in 6 kg of tap water. This suspension was pre-acidified to a pH of 4.0 to 4.1 with aqueous hydrochloric acid and then jet-cooked at approximately 155-160° C. The solution was transferred directly into a double walled reactor heated to 58.5° C. and then pH adjusted, if necessary, to a pH of 4.6 using aqueous hydrochloric acid (1M). A debranching enzyme (PROMOZYME® D2 pullulanase, available from Novozymes A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) was added at various wt. % concentrations (see Table 1), based on the anhydrous weight of the starch (15% starch solids), to the reaction mixture. After stirring at 100 rpm for various time periods, the enzyme was deactivated by jet cooking at greater than 140° C. The reaction mixture was then diluted with tap water and spray dried (250° C. inlet; 110° C. outlet), providing enzymatically-debranched waxy potato starch having a typical moisture content of about 6%.

(4) 1b. Determination of Dextrose Equivalence (Luff Schoorl Method)

(5) Dextrose Equivalence (“DE”) was determined based on the Luff Schoorl method as set forth in “ISI 24-1e Determination of Reducing Sugar, DE by Luff-Schoorl's Method”. International Starch Institute, Science Park Aarhus, Denmark, Rev.: LT 22.01.2002.

(6) This method is based upon iodine titration of excess copper. More specifically, 0.5-1.0 g of enzymatically-debranched waxy potato (“EDWP”) starch (as dry starch), 25.0 ml Luff-Schoorl reagent (available from Fischer Scientific), and 10 ml of demiwater are mixed together in flask and allowed to boil for 10 min from the point when the mixture begins boiling. The mixture is then cooled down by placing the flask in a waterbath for about 0.5 hrs. After cooling, 10 mil of potassium iodide (KI) solution and 25 ml of sulfuric acid H.sub.2SO.sub.4) are added to the mixture and the mixture is titrated with sodium thiosulphate to a white solution.

(7) The DE is calculated via the following equation: (e factor×100)/((100-moisture of the EDWP starch)×sample amount×1000). The e factor of the titrate for the used amount of sodium thiosulphate is determined by subtracting the used titrate from the blank (i.e. Blank-titrate). The blank is determined by repeating the above described titration process without adding the EDWP starch thereto. That is, the titration process excludes the addition of the EDINT starch to provide the blank.

(8) 1c. Method of Preparing Stirred Yogurt

(9) Stirred yogurt samples were prepared in the following manner. The dry ingredients were blended together and added to at least one dairy ingredient and water and mixed together in a Breddo Likwifier blender (available from Breddo Likwifier, a Division of Caravan Ingredients Co., Kansas City, Mo., USA) for 15 minutes at 500 RPM. This mixture was transferred to a holding/feed tank equipped with a Lightnin Mixer (available from SPC Corporation, Rochester, N.Y., USA) for constant agitation while feeding into a MicroThermics® Model 25-2S High-Temperature Short-Time processing equipment (available from MicroThermics. Inc., Raleigh, N.C., USA). In the upstream process, the mixture was homogenized at 65° C. and 120/35 Bar (1st/2nd stage) using a dual stage homogenizer (available from GEA Niro Soavi North America, Bedford, N.H., USA), and then pasteurized at 95° C. for 6 minutes. The mixture was then cooled to an inoculation temperature of 43° C. +/−2° and inoculated with 0.02% culture (Yo-Fa.st 16 Yogurt Culture, available from Chr. Hansen Holdings AIS, Hørsholm, Denmark,). The inoculated mixture was incubated for 3 to 4 hours at 43° C. to reach a target pH of 4.6. The mixture was then pumped using a stator pump through a #60 mesh screen and cooling system of the Model 25-2S processing equipment. Samples of the finished yogurt was collected in 4 oz. cups and cooled to 4° C., and evaluated.

(10) 1d. Viscosity Measurements

(11) The viscosity of stirred yogurt samples prepared in accordance with Example 1c was measured using a Brookfield Model DV-II+ Viscometer (available from Brookfield Engineering Laboratories. Inc., Middleboro, Mass., USA) with a small sample adaptor and the following parameters:

(12) Spindle #28, 30 RPM, 20 seconds, 12 g sample—output in centipoise (cP); and

(13) Samples were at a temperature of approximately 4° C.

(14) 1e. Gel Strength Measurements

(15) The gel strength of stirred yogurt samples prepared in accordance with Example 1c was measured using a Texture Analyzer, Model TA.XT2 (available from Texture Technologies Corp., Hamilton, Mass., USA) as follows. The yogurt peak gel strength was tested at approximately 4° C. In the 4 ounce cups in which the yogurt was collected. The reading was taken using a 1 inch acrylic cylinder at absolute peak force achieved during the 15 mm plunge into the sample. The probe moved through the sample at 0.2 mm/s.

(16) 1f. Yogurt Opacity Measurements

(17) The opacity of stirred yogurt samples prepared in accordance with Example 1c was measured using an Evolution™ 60S UV-Visible Spectrophotometer with VISIONlite™ ColorCalc software (available from ThermoFisher Scientific. Inc., Waltham, Mass., USA) as follows. Yogurt was removed from the refrigerator and gently stirred with a plastic pipette. The pipette was used to load a small amount of yogurt into the 0.2 mm O-demountable quartz cuvette with removable window slide, making sure that the removable slide was tightly aligned with the window and air bubbles or voids avoided in the cuvette. The equipment was set for absorbance measurement mode (open Opacity method) and a white tile placed on the top to make a baseline for calibration. The yogurt-filled cuvette was then loaded after the calibration was completed, and the absorbance of light measured over 350-800 nm wavelength through the cuvette. Light absorbance (A) at 450 nm from the curve was recorded and used to represent opacity.

(18) 1g. Starch Materials

(19) The inhibited starch (“IS”) used in the Examples below is a hydroxypropyl stabilized, distarch phosphate, waxy maize starch stabilized with 6.6 wt. % propylene oxide and cross-linked with 0.036 wt. % phosphorus oxychloride. The non-granular, enzymatically-debranched waxy potato (“EDWP”) starches used in the Examples below were prepared as described above in 1a using, the debranching times and enzyme dosages set forth in Table 1.

(20) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 EDWP Starches EDWP Enzyme Debranching Dextrose Starch Dosage (wt. %) Time (hours) Equivalent (DE) 1 0.15 10 3.8 2 0.15 15 3.7 3 0.15 20 3.9 4 0.25 10 4.5 5 0.25 15 4.1 6 0.25 20 5.0 7 0.37 10 5.1 8 0.37 15 5.0 9 0.37 20 6.7 10  0.50 10 4.6 11  0.50 15 4.6 12  0.50 20 5.5 13* 0.25 15 3.0 14* 0.50 15 3.9 15* 0.50 3.5 3.7 *For starches 13-15, the starch dispersion was at 20-25% starch solids by weight during enzymatic debranching.

(21) The comparative starch materials (“SM”) used in the Examples are described in Table 2.

(22) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Other Starch Materials SM No. Description SM 1 Maltodextrin SM 2 Potato-based maltodextrin SM 3 Amylomaltase (4-α-glucanotransferase) modified potato starch SM 4 Starch blend containing granular thermally inhibited starch SM 1 = N-DULGE ® SA1 maltodextrin, available from Ingredion Incorporated, Bridgewater, New Jersey, SM 2 = PASELLI ™ WFR maltodextrin, available from Avebe, Veendam, The Netherlands. SM 3 = ETENIA ™ 457 potato starch, available from Avebe, Veendam, The Netherlands. SM 4 = NOVATION ® Indulge 1720 functional native starch, available from Ingredion Incorporated, Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Example 2 and Comparative Examples A and B

Comparing the Performance of a Low Protein Yogurt Formulation Containing IS and EDWP Starches to a Full Protein Yogurt Formulation Only Containing IS Starch

(23) Yogurt formulations were produced according to the process described above in Example 1c using the formulae described in Table 3 below. The yogurt formulations described in Table 3 were evaluated for viscosity, gel strength and opacity, with the results of the evaluations set forth in Table 4 below.

(24) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Yogurt Formulations Examples Ingredients (wt. %) 2.sup.1 A.sup.2 B.sup.3 Water 75.79 73.80 79.30 Non-fat dry milk 2.25 8.00 2.50 IS 3.00 2.00 2.00 Heavy cream 6.20 6.20 6.20 Sugar 10.00 10.00 10.00 EDWP Starch No. 15 1.06 0 0 Whey permeate.sup.4 1.70 0 0 Total 100 100 100 .sup.1Low protein (1%) yogurt formulation containing a texturizing agent described herein. .sup.2Full protein (2.9%) yogurt formulation. .sup.3Low protein (1%) yogurt formulation with no texturizing agent described herein added thereto. .sup.4Lactowell ® Whey Permeate, available from Lactalis Ingredients, Bourgbarré, France.

(25) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Results of Yogurt Formulation Evaluations Examples Evaluation 2 A B Viscosity, cP (@ 7 days) 6074 6041 500 Gel strength, g (@ 7 days) 25.58 27.6 11.66 Opacity 0.7440 0.8605 0.5925

(26) Based on the above results, a low protein yogurt formulation (about 1% protein) containing the texturizing agent described herein (Ex. 2) has a comparable viscosity, gel strength and opacity to a full protein yogurt formulation control. (Ex. A) that does not contain the texturizing agent described herein.

Examples 3-13

Gel Strength Evaluation of Low Protein Yogurt Formulations Containing IS starch and Different EDWP Starches

(27) Twelve different low protein yogurt formulations (Examples 3-14) having about 2% protein were prepared according to the process described above and using the formula described in Table 5 below. Each of the twelve low-protein yogurt formulations that were evaluated contained a different EDWP starch set forth in Table 1. The Gel Strength Performance of each of the Ex. 3-14 yogurt formulations is set forth in Table 6 along with the Table 1 EDWP starch contained in each exemplary yogurt formulation and the DE associated therewith.

(28) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Yogurt Formulation Ingredients Amount (wt %) Water 81.80 Non-fat dry milk 5.50 IS 2.00 Heavy Cream 3.70 Sugar 5.00 EDWP Starch from Table 1 2.00 Total 100.00

(29) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Gel Strength of Ex 3-14 Yogurt Formulations Table 1 DE of Table 1 Gel Gel EDWP EDWP strength.sup.1 strength.sup.1 Example Starch Starch (g) @ 7 days (g) @ 7 weeks 3 1 3.8 33.87 37.88 4 2 3.7 29.64 36.47 5 3 3.9 28.19 33.27 6 4 4.5 33.42 36.88 7 5 4.1 35.20 40.60 8 6 5.0 33.15 37.13 9 7 5.1 27.62 30.85 10 8 5.0 32.55 38.50 11 9 6.7 28.41 34.27 12 10 4.6 34.73 40.48 13 11 4.6 33.17 38.05 14 12 5.5 28.67 34.66 .sup.1Gel strength values are the average of two runs.

(30) Based on the above results, yogurt formulations prepared with an EDWP starch having a DE of from about 3.8 to about 5 provided yogurts having the best gel strength.

Example 1.5 and Comparative Examples C-G

Comparing the Performance of Low Protein Yogurt Formulations Containing IS and EDWP Starches to Full and Low Protein Yogurt Formulations Containing an IS Starch Alone or in Combination with a Non-EDWP Starch

(31) Yogurt formulations according to the invention are compared to yogurt formulations prepared with commercially available starches. Example 15 (1% protein) and. Comparative Example C, D, E, and G (1% protein) and F (2.9% protein) yogurt formulations were produced according to the process described above using the formulae described in Table 7 below. The characteristics of the Ex. 15 and Comparative Ex. C, D, E, F, and G yogurt formulations are described in Table 8 below.

(32) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Yogurt Formulations Com- Com- Com- Com- Com- para- para- para- para- para- Ingredients tive tive tive tive tive (wt %) Ex. 15 Ex. C Ex. D Ex. E Ex. F Ex. G Water 80.98 80.97 80.97 80.91 77.40 82.80 Non-fat dry 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 8.10 2.70 milk IS 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Heavy cream 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Sugar 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 EDWP Starch 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 SM 1 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 2 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 SM 3 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

(33) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Characteristics of Ex. 15 and Comparative Ex. C-G Yogurt Formulations Yogurt Formulation Gel strength (g) @ 7 days Opacity (A) 15 23.90 0.695 C 12.42 0.642 D 17.86 0.700 E 32.92 0.557 F 21.50 0.790 G 11.06 0.505

(34) The above Table 8 results show that a low protein yogurt formulation containing a texturizing agent described herein (Ex.15) provides viscosity, gel strength and opacity that is comparable or equivalent to a full protein yogurt formulation(Ex. F). In contrast, the low protein yogurt formulations of Comparative Exs. C, D, and E did not have an opacity and gel strength that were comparable or equivalent to the full protein yogurt formulation of Ex. F.

Example 16 and Comparative Examples H and I

Comparing the Performance of a Low Protein Yogurt Formulations Containing IS and EDW P Starches to Full and Low Protein Yogurt Formulations Containing IS Starch Alone

(35) The yogurt formulations of Example 16 (at 1% protein) and Comparative Examples H and I (at 2.9% and 1% protein, respectively) were produced according to the process described above and using the formulae described in Table 9 below.The characteristics of these yogurt formulations are described in Table 10 below. The Ex. 16 and Comparative Ex, I yogurt formulations were low protein (1% protein) formulations, and Comparative Ex H was a full protein (2.9% protein) yogurt formulation.

(36) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Yogurt Formulations Comparative Comparative Ingredients Ex 16 Ex. H Ex. I (wt %) (1% protein) (2.9% protein) (1% protein) Water 83.15 79.70 85.15 Non-fat dry milk 2.85 8.30 2.85 IS 2.00 2.00 2.00 Sugar 10.00 10.00 10.00 EDWP Starch 14 2.00 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

(37) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Characteristics of Ex. 16 and Comparative Ex. H and I Yogurt Formulations Yogurt Viscosity Gel strength Opacity Formulation (cP) @ 7 days (g) @ 7 days (A) 16 4083 20.93 0.550 H 4333 21.30 0.733 I 183 11.1 0.323

(38) The above Table 10 results show that a low protein yogurt formulation containing a texturizing agent described herein (Ex. 16, 1% protein) has a viscosity, gel strength and opacity comparable or equivalent to a full protein yogurt formulation control (Ex. H).

(39) The above description is for the purpose of teaching the person of ordinary skill in the art how to practice the invention, and it is not intended to detail all those obvious modifications and variations which will become apparent to the skilled worker upon reading the description. It is intended, however, that all such obvious modifications and variations be included within the scope of the invention defined by the following claims.